1920-05-10

Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I move, seconded by Mr. McCurdy:
That the first Report of the Special Committee appointed to consider and report upon the question of what Memorials, if any, should be erected on the battlefields of the late war, be commended to the consideration of the Government.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of the customary notice this motion can, of course, be entertained only by unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Rt, Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I desire
[Stage Direction]
to make a statement which, from the importance of its character, I shall read, with the permission of the House. It has reference to negotiations which have for some time been going on between the British and the Canadian Governments in Tespect of Canadian representation at Washington. The negotiations have been concluded, and to-day a statement will have been made in the House of Commons in London, and I desire that the House of Commons here shall have cognizance of the matter at the same time.
As a result of recent discussions an arrangement has been concluded between the British and Canadian Governments to provide more complete representation at Washington of Canadian interests than has hitherto existed. Accordingly, it has been agreed that His Majesty, on advice of his Canadian ministers, shall appoint a Minister Plenipotentiary who will fiave charge of Canadian affairs and will at all times be the ordinary channel of communication with the United States Government in matters of purely Canadian concern, acting upon instructions from and reporting direct to the Canadian Government. In the absence of the Ambassador the Canadian minister will take charge of the whole Embassy and of the representation of Imperial as well as Canadian interests. He will be accredited by His Majesty to the President with the necessary powers for the purpose.
This new arrangement will not denote any departure either on the part of the British Government or of the Canadian Government from the principle of the diplomatic unity of the British Empire.
The need for this important step has been fully realized by both Governments for some time. For a good many years there has been direct communication between Washington and Ottawa, but the constantly increasing importance of Canadian interests in the United States has made it apparent that Canada should be represented there in some distinctive manner, for this would doubtless tend to expedite negotiations, and naturally first-hand acquaintance with Canadian conditions would promote good understanding. In view of the peculiarly close relations that have always existed between the people of Canada and those of the United States, it is confidently expected as well that this new step will have the very desirable result of maintaining and strengthening the friendly relations and cooperation between the British Empire and the United States.
Hon. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: Inasmuch as the right

hon. Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) has asked the permission of the House to make a statement, I should like to ask the House to give me permission to say a word with reference thereto, if not now, then on the first appropriate occasion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I feel sure that the
House would be only too happy to give the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) an opportunity to give expression to his views on the memorandum just read, but I do not think it is desirable that there should be any general debate on the subject unless there is some specific motion before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the leader of the Opposition shall have liberty to speak.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried, carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to ask *my right hon. friend if he will be good enough to see that all the correspondence in reference to this matter is laid on the Table at the earliest possible moment. My purpose in rising now is not to refer at the moment particularly to the far-reaching and important step the Government has taken but rather to express surprise that Parlia.-ment has not been acquainted with the correspondence in reference to this matter before the whole matter was finally concluded. If I understand the announcement which my right hon. friend has just made, it is to the effect that the whole transaction is finally settled as between the Government of Great Britain, the Canadian Government and the United States Government, and Parliament has had no opportunity whatever of giving any consideration to the matter in its far-reaching inter-imperial and international bearings. I think that is not the course which the Government should have taken. Parliament should have been fully apprised of and given opportunity to discuss the essential matters relating to this far-reaching step before the Government came to any final decision in connection with it.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: As this is not
the time for discussion I do not propose to enter into the second part of the question raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King). I would merely say that all the available papers in connection with the negotiations will be brought down as quickly as possible and presented to the House.



RETIREMENT OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved for leave

to introduce Bill No. 120 to provide for the retirement of certain members of the public service.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CALDER:: This Bill is very similar to one which was introduced, if I am not mistaken, at the session before last. Its purpose is to provide a plan or scheme whereby certain members of the public service who, on account of old age or disability or for other cause, should be retired from the service. The Bill contains two methods whereby that may be done. In the case of those who are retired at or over sixty years of age the Bill provides for an annuity. In the case of those who are retired under sixty years of age the Bill provides for a lump sum gratuity. The details can be discussed on the second reading of the Bill or in the committee stage.


Mr. BELAND:: That does not refer at all to the retirement of members of the Government?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 118, for the relief of James Lewis Price.-Mr. MacNutt.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Frederick Tristram Clark.-Mr. Burnham.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CAHILL:: I wish to ask the Government when we may expect the fourth volume of the Auditor General's report.


George Green Foster: Has not that
blessed fourth volume come down yet?


Frank S. Cahill: Not that I have seen.


George Green Foster: I promised it
two or three times and now I think I will have to hand that responsibility over to some of my colleagues.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I have been
waiting for it just as impatiently as the hon. gentleman has. I know that all the proofs have been read and I am told it is coming down any day. However I have not seen it yet. The moment it comes down it will be laid on the table of the House.


Frank S. Cahill: I would like to ask the
Government seriously if they would bring 139
down the Auditor General's report at as early a date as possible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It will be
brought down at the earliest possible moment.



MENNONITES LEAVING FOR THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PEDLOW:: I would like to repeat the question asked by me on Friday last and which, the right hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) informed me could not be answered because the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) was not in the House at the time. My question was based upon press reports which appeared in the Friday morning papers to the effect that the Mennonites of Manitoba


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. gentleman would serve his purpose quite as well by simply asking an answer to the question ne submitted on Friday last.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In deference to the wish of the Ohair I would ask the Minister of Immigration and Colonization to answer the question asked by me in the House on Friday afternoon last.


James Alexander Calder: As the hon. gentleman's question was not brought to my attention I have not had an opportunity of reading it. I shall read it in Hansard and give a reply to-morrow.



PRIVATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 114, for the relief of William Edward Vinall.-Mr. MacNutt.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)	.

Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is there any law or rule or regulation under which all Government notices must he published three times at least in the Canada Gazette?
2.	Must these notices be published accordingly in both French and English?
3.	If so, is that practice followed in every case for Government notices?
4.	If not, did it ever exist?



5.	If it did exist, when was it changed, and why?
6.	Did the Editor of the Canada Gazette receive orders from some authority, on the 17th October, 1919, to publish Government notices only once in the said Canada Gazette, except notices from the Interior Department for Dominion Lands?
7.	Did the Board of Commerce protest against this practice because none of their notices were legal if not thrice published in the Canada Gazette?
Rt, Hon. ARTHUR SIFTON:
1.	The general law regulating insertions in tlhe Canada Gazette iiis contained in Chap. 80, R.S.C., Section 33, wfhiioh prescribes that *'All Proclamations issued by the Governor, General or under tlhe authority of the Governor in Council, and all official notices, Orders in Council, Regulations, advertisements and documents relating to the Dominion of Canada, or matters under the control of the Parliament thereof, and requiring publication, shall foe published in the .Canada Gazette, unless some other mode of publication thereof 'is required by law."
There are variations in the preiscriptions of the several departmental acts, and of the rules and regulations of departments, boards and oominisisSons, as to the number Off insertions of documents land notices in the Canada Gazette. This department is not aware that under any law, rule or regulation all Government notices must be published three times at least in the Canada Gazette.
2.	There does not seem Ito exist any general definite rule under which Government notices must be published in both French and English.
3.	4 and 5. Answered by No. 2.
6.	No.
7.	The Board of Commerce was created by legislation passed the 7th of July, 1919. When, the Board of Commerce sent their first notice far publication in the Canada Gazette, it asked for three insertions, but in subsequent requests no mention Was made of .the provision in the law that three insertions were required, and it w>as not until February 26, 1920, that the Department of Public Printing' was advised that three insertions were called for by the Board of Commerce Act for all the notices of that organization, since which itime the rule has been observed.


GOVERNMENT SHIPYARD AT SOREL.
Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Is the Government shipyard at St. Joseph de Sorel included in the assets of Canada?
2.	If so, for what amount?

3.	What is the total amount invested and chargeable to capital on said shipyard since its establishment?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes. Expenditures on the shipyard at St. Joseph de Sorel are included in the item " Improvements to St. Lawrence," set out on the assets side of the balance sheet of the Dominion as published in the Public Accounts. These capital charges, however, are not taken into consideration in determining the net debt of Canada.
2 and 3. Summary of expenditure in connection with " Improvements to St. Lawrence " including shipyard and dredging fleet is, as follows:-
Cost of Dredging
Montreal Harbour Commissioners
1851-1888	..	..$ 3,402,494.35
Department of Public Works 18891904	 1,784,579.86
Department of Marine 1904-1920... 10,621,831.60
Expenditure for plant, shops, survey, etc.

Totals	 15,808,905.81	7,225,100.21


C.N.R. BONDS GUARANTEED BY ALBERTA.
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Did the Government take over all the lines of the Canadian Northern Railway whose bonds have been guaranteed by the Alberta Government?
2.	Did the Alberta Government guarantee the bonds of a line of the Canadian Northern Railway from Calgary south to Macleod and from Macleod west to Pincher Creek?
3.	Were these bonds disposed of? If so, what was the amount raised?
4.	Is it the intention to use this money for the construction of the said line?
4.	Can this money be used for any other purpose than the construction of the line for which the guarantee was given?
6. What is the policy in regard to the construction of this line?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The two lines referred to are included in the total of 955 miles guaranteed by the province of Alberta, of this guarantee, bonds of 675 miles amounting to $9,726,364.26 were either sold or pledged and total proceeds from same were $8,860,048.09.
4.	Under the provisions of the Trust Deed the moneys cannot be used for any purpose other than the construction of the railway lines mentioned in the schedule to the Trust Deed.

5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Construction of these lines cannot be proceeded with this year owing to financial, labour and other conditions.


TORONTO HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. THOMAS FOSTER:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to contribute to the improvements in the Harbour of Toronto in the same proportion as in the other large harbours of the Dominion?
2.	If not, why not?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1 and 2. Up to the commencement of the Canadian Stewart Co. contract for Toronto Harbour improvements which was the portion of the comprehensive scheme of development to be done at the direct cost of the Government, there has been expended by the Department of Public Works in the improvement of Toronto Harbour the sum of $2,323,191.75.
Since that date, there has been expended on the harbour by the Department of Public Works, the sum of $3,691,068.01, and further work, estimated to cost $1,500,000, is to be proceeded with during construction season of 1920 and 1921.


TRIAD OF WINNIPEG STRIKERS.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Was the Dominion Government represented by cousel at the recent trials of A. A. Heaps, Reverend W. Ivens, W. A. Pritchard, R. J. Johns, George Armstrong, John Queen and R. E. Bray, before the Court of King's Bench, Criminal Side, of the Province of Manitoba ?
2.	Did the Dominion Government, or any official thereof, retain or appoint any of the counsel representing the Crown at said trials?
3.	If so, who were advocates who were so retained and appointed by the Dominion Government or any of its officials?
4.	What amount of costs has the Govern, ment paid, or will be called upon to pay in the said trials?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Messrs. Andrews, Andrews, Burbidge and Bastedo, J. B. Coyne, K.C., Travers Sweatman, I. Pitblado and W. W. Richardson.
4.	Amount paid to date $104,271.09. Further -accounts amounting to nearly $50,000 are before the department for taxation.


INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, KINGSTON.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Who is the Dominion Income Tax Inspector at Kingston, when was he appointed, and what salary does he receive?
139i
2.	What territory is included in his district?
3.	How many persons are employed on the staff of the said inspector and what is the total rate per month of salary paid to them?
4.	How much has been paid in salaries and other expenses to the said inspector and his staff from the opening of said office to March 31, 1920?
5.	What amounts have been collected in income taxes at the Kingston office for each year since the appointment of the inspector?
6.	What amounts have been collected from rural and urban sources respectively in the Kingston district?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	George A. Macdonald; 1st March, 1918; $200 per month.
2.	Fiscal year, 1919, the counties of Leeds, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Hastr ings, Prince Edward, Northumberland and Peterborough. Fiscal year, 1920, Leeds, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington.
3.	Fiscal year, 1920: Kingston, 18; Brock-ville, 3. Kingston, $1,438.66; Brockville $300.
4.	$28,763.26.
5.	Fiscal year, 1919:	$151,863.12; fiscal
year, 1920; $274,387.97.
6.	Urban tax collected, $421,957.07; rural tax collected, $4,294.02; total, $426,251.09.


CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION.
*Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Referring to the classification of the Civil Service of Canada of September, 1919, why did the commission discriminate in classifying the position of "Secretary to Executive"?
2.	What secretaries to deputy heads have been classified as "Secretary to Executive"?
3.	Why was the title of "Secretary Stenographer" in the official classification list of July, 1919, omitted in that of September, 1919?
4.	Is it the intention of the commission to rectify the omission?


Rt. Hon. ARTHUR SIFTON:: 1.	The Government is not aware that any discrimination was shown in classifying positions in the class "Secretary to Executive." Positions were classified by the Civil Service Commission on the basis of the duties and responsibilities exercised by the incumbents of the positions.
2.	It has been found advisable to discontinue the class "Secretary to Executive" as appearing in the September issue of the classification and it is replaced by a class "Secretary to Executive" with lower qualification requirements and a salary range of $1,500, $1,620, $1,740, $1,860. Positions previously classified as "Secretary to Executive" are now under review by the commission and the incumbents of these positions will be classified as principal clerk, head clerk or in other appropriate classes.

3.	The class "secretary-stenographer" was omitted from the September edition of the classification because of its great similarity to the class senior clerk stenographer but it has since been combined with the lowered class secretary to executive.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


CANADA WHEAT BOARD.
Mr. ANDREWS:: 1.	When does the term of the present Wheat Board expire?
2.	Does the Government contemplate renewing its term of office?
3.	When will the participation certificates be issued?
4.	Does the Government expect that the farmers will get any cash payment for these certificates?


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The Wheat Board was constituted to market the wheat crop o-f 1919, and its term of office will expire when that has in effect been accomplished, probably about September 1.
2.	The Government has not so far contemplated doing so.
3.	Participation certificates are issued as wheat is sold by the owners, but full payment of participation certificates cannot be made until all the crop has been marketed, and payments therefor, and expenses connected therewith, have been adjusted.
4.	Certainly. The Wheat Board has already notified the holders that they may reasonably count on receiving at least 40 *cents per bushel.


IMPORTS INTO CANADA.
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What was the amount of imports, during 1919, from United States, England, France, Italy and Belgium?
2.	What was the amount of imports from the same countries during the first three months of 1920?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Value of imports entered for consumption during 1919:
From	United States	$740,114,584"	England	
87,530,259"	France	
6,784,8410"	Italy	
706,358" Belgium	..	359,1032.	Value of imports entered for consumption during first three months of 1920:From	United States	'.$229,790,119"	England	
66,923,619"	France	
4,867,689"	Italy	
418,396"	Belgium	
562,358


HERMAN J. DAGER.
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Is there a person named Herman J. Dager, in the Inland Revenue Department?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	What is his nationality?
4.	By whom was he recommended?
*	5. Was he ever appointed a Preventive Officer
of the Inland Revenue Department?
6.	What is his salary?
7.	What other sources of income has he from the department?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	No, but he was formerly in the department.
2.	October 6, 1898.
3.	Canadian.
4.	Sir Henri Joly, as Minister of Inland Revenue.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 1.
7.	Answered by No. 1.


GOVERNMENT TELEGRAPH OPERATORS.
Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	Have the Government telegraph operators received the bonus granted to other civil servants?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to grant them the bonus in the future?
3.	Jf not, what is the reason these employees, who give their whole time to the service of the Government, are not given the benefit of the bonus the same as other Government employers?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
.3. Standard rates of pay, corresponding to those of the commercial telegraph companies, are paid Government telegraph employees, and being in receipt of prevailing wages they are not entitled, under the regulations, to receive any bonus.


FEDERAL EMERGENCY FUND.
Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	What amount of the Federal Emergency Fund of $40,060,000 for the relief of returned soldiers, voted at last session, has been expended?
2.	What amount w-as expended in each province?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 1 and 2. The
total expenditure by the Federal Emergency Appropriation Department out of the $40,000,000 voted last session will run between $5,000,000 and $5,500,000. The branches of the fund in the western provinces have until May 15 to pay -Soldiers' Settlement cases, claims for which originated prior to April 24. These payments were authorized under Order in Council passed May 4 and

the branches have until May 15 to complete their payments. The official returns from the western branches will, therefore, not be received in full until some time after that date.
Advances to Branches in the Respective Provinces to 24th April, 1920, less Refunds to date.
Province.	Advance.
Alberta	$1,065,000	00British Columbia	
970,000	00Manitoba	
325,000	00New Brunswick	
57,175	67Nova Scotia	
200,000	00Ontario	
1,258,982	21Quebec	
1,242,577	68Prince Edward Island..	22,800	00Saskatchewan	
450,000	00Yukon	
10,000	00Total	$5,601,535 56


*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 


SIR DCNALD MANN'S PRIVATE CAR.
[Stage Direction]
1.	Did Sir Donald Mann have a private car?
2.	If so, was it taken over by the Government when they bought the Canadian Northern railway?
3.	If not, why?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. No.
2 Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: 1.	What was the total amount of drawback for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920, paid to textile manufacturers on (a) raw cotton, and (b) cotton yarns?
2.	What was the total amount of drawback for the fiscal year ending Mr,rch 31, 1920, paid to textile manufacturers on (a) raw wool, and (b) woollen yarns?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Do the inspectors in charge of terminal elevators, under the Board of Grain Commissioners, have full authority to inspect grain, as provided for in the Canada Grain Act?
2.	If not, why not?
3.	If so, do the inspectors issue the requisite inspection certificates, with their signatures attached thereto, as evidence of such inspection?
4.	Has the Chief Inspector or his immediate assistant, in charge of terminal elevators, authority to change such inspection, without consent of the inspector directly in charge of a terminal elevator?
5.	If so, is this practice provided for in the Canada Grain Act?
6.	Are inspection certificates, either inwards or outwards, signed in blank by an officer under the Board of Grain Commissioners, and then filled in afterwards by a clerk?
7.	Are western inspection certificates signed in blank by the Chief Inspector or one of
his officers, and then filled in by an officer in the Eastern Inspection District?
8.	Is the inward and outward inspection at terminal elevators identically the same?
9.	Does the Canada Grain Act provide for the inspection of grain into terminal elevators, from steamers and barges?
10.	If so, does the inward or outward inspection govern?
11.	How much grain has the Government elevator, Port Arthur, handled since September 1, 1919, to May 1, 1920?
12.	How much grain did the above elevator handle during the following crop years: 191314, 1914-15, 1915-16, 1916-17. 1917-18, 1918-19?
13.	What was the cost per bushel in handling grain in the Government elevator, Port Arthur, for the above crop years, and for the period, September 1, 1919. to May 1, 1920?
14.	Does the above cost Include any provision for interest on investment and management?
15.	What was the revenue per bushel for the above period: (a) including as revenue, money derived from the sale of overages, screenings and scalpings; (b) excluding as revenue, money derived from the sale of overages, screenings and scalpings?
16.	How many employees were engaged in the above elevator during the above periods?
17.	What is the name of the senior officer or manager who superintended the operations of the Government elevatoras under the Department of Trade and Commerce for the above periods?
18.	Do all the Government elevators carry insurance on grain stored therein, in accordance with law?
19.	If not, why the discrimination against the other commercially-owned elevators, and on whose authority is the law broken?
20.	Section 95, subsection 7. of the Canada Grain Act provides for the confiscation of overages over one-quarter of one per cent to the Government. Are the Board of Grain Commissioners keeping strict accounting of all grain going into and out of terminal elevators, including screenings and scalpings, so as to arrive at the above figures?
21.	Has the Registration Department, under the Board of Grain Commissioners, full information tabulated showing the gross weight in and gross weight out of terminal elevators?
22.	What change was made by the Board of Grain Commissioners in the wording of the outward weight certificates?
23.	When was the change made?
24.	Was the weight certificate, as worded, considered faulty up to the time of the change?
25.	If not, why was the change in the wording made?
26.	Has the Canada Wheat Board an officer at Fort William, whose duty it is to check the grades given by the inspection department under the Department of Trade and Commerce, on all grain shipped for and on account of the Canada Wheat Board?
27.	If so, how many officers are engaged in this office, their names and salaries?
28.	If so, what is the necessity of two Government officials doing the one task?
29.	If so, are the expenses incidental to this office deducted from the money, which ought rightly be given to the farmers, for the participation certificates issued?

30.	Does the Canada Wheat Board accept the inspection certificates as issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, without reservation?
31.	Did the Canada Wheat Board always avail itself of the highest market for all wheat sold for and on account of the producers?
32.	Since the Government has taken over the control of the wheat business, has this had a tendency to reduce the work of the Board of Grain Commissioners?
33.	If so, have the number of employees under the Board of Grain Commissioners been reduced, for the purposes of economical administration?
34.	Is the administration of the Canada Grain Act self-sustaining?
35.	If not, how are the deficits made up from year to year and on whose authority?
36.	What salaries are paid to the secretary of the Board of Grain Commissioners and the secretary of the Canada Wheat Board?
37.	Do the public terminal elevators at Fort William or Port Arthur purchase and sell grain from time to time, contrary to the Canada Grain Act?
38.	If so, on whose authority?
39.	Section 48 of the Canada Grain Act provided for the fixing of grades other than statutory grades, by the Grain Standards Board. Has this board fixed the composition and grades of: (a) screenings, (b) seal pings?
40.	If not. why not?
41.	If not, who has fixed the composition and grades up to the present time, and on what authority?
42.	If fixed, what are they?
43.	Are the original dockages taken from the grain returned to the producer or the buyer of the warehouse receipt covering the specific parcel?
44.	If not-, why not?
45.	How long has the Government, through the Department of Agriculture, handled standard stock food ex terminal elevators?
46.	Has the venture been profitable?
47.	What is the surplus or deficit for each year?



COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. S. F. Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture) it was resolved that to-morrow the House do consider in Committee of the Whole a resolution declaring it expedient to bring in a measure to regulate 'the sale and inspection of commercial feeding stuffs, bran, shorts, middlings, and chop feeds.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue) it was resolved that to-morrow the House do consider in Committee of the Whole a resolution to amend the Inland Revenue Act, Chapter 51 of the revised statutes of 1906, with respect to chemical stills, standard leaf tobacco, distilling without a license, excise duty on spirits, etc.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Burrell it was resolved that to-morrow the House consider in Committee of the Whole a resolution to amend the Post Office Act, Chapter 56 of the revised statutes, 1906, with respect to the registration fee on letters, the postage rate on newspapers and periodical publications, etc.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. C. C. Ballan-tyne (Minister of Marine) the House went into Committee of the Whole on the following proposed resolution.
Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to repeal the Acts relating to the Harbour of Piotou, in the province of Nova Scotia, and to transfer the property, rights and assets now held by the Harbour Commissioners to His Majesty in the right of Canada, and to provide that His Majesty shall assume and discharge all the obligations and liabilities of the said commissioners.
Mr. DUFF:: Will the minister kindly explain the purpose of this resolution.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: Its object is to permit of the introduction of a Bill to permit of the transfer of the Harbour of Pic-tou, Nova Scotia, from the Department of Marine to me Department of Public Works. The reason for the transfer is that the revenue of Pictou Harbour is less than the expenditures in connection with it. The revenue for the seven years from 1913 to 1919, inclusive, amounted to $3,388, whereas the expenditure was $3,840. While the harbour is under a Harbour Commission, no moneys can be spent to repair the wharfs there unless the revenue permits of that being done; but the committee will notice that according to the figures I have given the expenditure during the period referred to has been greater than the revenue. The commission is unable to make the necessary repairs to the wharf as matters stand, and therefore it is proposed-if hon. gentlemen agree to the present resolution and to the Bill which is to be based upon it- that the harbour shall be transferred from the Department of Marine to the Department of Public Works.


William Duff: What has been the yearly revenue from the wharfs in question and what property is it proposed to repair?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: The revenue is derived from what is known as wharfage dues and the revenue for the past seven years

has been as follows: 1913, $678; 1914, $789; 1915, $999; 1916, $356; 1917, $253; 1918, $151; 1919, $162. Hon. members will notice that there has been a gradual decrease in the receipts year by year and that in 1919 the revenue amounted to only $162, and in 1918 to $151. Under present conditions there is no opportunity to repair any of the Government wharfs at Pictou. If the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. McGregor) is in the House he will be in a position to give more detailed information upon the subject.


William Duff: I would like to know if the wharfs from which this revenue is derived are Government wharfs or private wharfs; also what liabilities the Government have to assume in connection with this transfer?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: The Department of Public works built the wharfs many years ago. I find that the first Harbour Commission was appointed in the year 1873. The commission is composed of Mr. D. Sutherland, chairman, (appointed October 19, 1912), and Messrs. Thomas Caqlie, Hugh Murray, William Fraser and George H. Macdonald.
Wharves are usually built by the Department olf Public Works and then transferred to the Department of Marine. In this case the local board has been collecting the dues and doing the necessary repairs since 1873. Owing to the decline of business the revenue has been decreasing, and I am informed that the necessary repairs cannot now be taken care of by the revenue. The Department of Marine has not the necessary authority to attend to the work, but the Department of Public Works could do so if the committee passes this resolution.


Mr. OOPP:: What is the cause of the decline in revenue from year to year?


Mr. McGREGOR:: It will be noticed by the figures given by the minister that the revenue collected previous to the war was quite considerable, but during recent years it has fallen off to practically nothing, and consequently the Harbour Commission is not able to maintain the three wharves in repair. These wharves will come under the control of the Public Works .Department if this Bill passes. I may say that the commissioners have always given their services gratuitously, being public-spirited citizens. The expenditure in future will be greater by reason of the fact that a large amount [DOT]of money has been spent by the Public Works Department in deepening and straightening the channel of the East
river to Trenton and New Glasgow and constructing locks, and it is in the public interest that this work should 'be taken care of by the Public Works Department.


William Duff: Were these wharves built
by the Government?


Alexander McGregor: Yes.


William Duff: What are the liabilities that the Government have to take over?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: So far as I know
the Public Works Department will not take over any liabilities. The sole object of the resolution and of the Bill based upon it is that the necessary repairs may be made by the Public Works Department. If the Marine Department had the necessary authority to do these repairs, of course, I would not be asking hon. members to pass this resolution. But I think the committee will agree that an important babour like Pictou must be kept up, and it cannot be unless the proposed transfer is made.


William Duff: My only reason for asking is that the resolution states:
and to provide that His Majesty shall assume and discharge all the obligations and liabilities of the said commissioners.
As regards the Government taking over the property, I think it is the right and proper thing to do, and I have no objection to this course being taken; all I am asking for is information before the resolution is passed, and I think I aim entitled to such information.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: The hon. member
has all the information that the Government is in possession of. This is simply a transfer of the harbour to the Public Works Department, and I am not aware that there are any liabilities to be assumed.
IMr. LEMIEUX:	While I do not object
to this resolution, I must say that there are other wharves, and piers, and docks in the Dominion which have been absolutely ignored for the last eight or ten years. I refer particularly to such works built on the Baie de Chaleur (and on the 'St. Lawrence; many of such wharves and piers have been damaged by storms and not one dollar's worth of repairs made. Speaking for my own constituency, I for one do not ask the Government to spend any money on those works, for 'I realize that the country is passing through a great financial crisis, and in view of the heavy taxation which is impending it is the desire of every man and woman that any heavy commitments should be very seriously considered

by the Government before they are undertaken. Since the beginning of the war public works from Halifax to Vancouver have been built which, having regard to our tremendous financial obligations, might well have been delayed. I need not name any of those public works, but they are to be found in every province. With the very heavy tax bills which await them the electors will not stand for any but absolutely urgent expenditure on piers, wharves or docks for the next few years, and I hope when those expenditures are proposed to t'he Minister of Finance in council that he will blue-pencil any which are not absolutely necessary. I could give a long list of public wharves built by the Government which were very useful to our fishing population, but which have been completely abandoned,-particularly when they were situated in constituencies represented by members of the Opposition. But under the circumstances I do not begrudge the refusal of the Government to meet our requests for repairs to those public works. However, I appeal to my hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) not to commit the country to any nonurgent expenditure while every elector is expecting the visit of the tax collector with heavy demands to meet the huge debt which confronts this country.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: I wish to assure the hon. member (Mr. Letmieux) that the Government have no intention of constructing new wharves or of spending large sums of money at the harbour of Pictou. In proof of that I might say that the new Estimates do not contain one single dollar for this harbour. The Government would be at perfect liberty to repair the harbours to which my hon. friend refers, but so far as Pictou is concerned, even if the wharves were falling to pieces the Pictou Harbour Commissioners have not the necessary revenue which would enable them to effect repairs, and the Department of Marine have no authority to spend money other than what is derived from the harbour dues, and so on. I am merely asking that this transfer be made; I want to make it plain that it is not the intention of the Government to spend any large sum of money on Pictou harbour.


Mr.   GANNON@: The minister says that no liabilities are being assumed by the Government in this respect. If there are obligations or liabilities, why say in the resolution :
And to provide that His Majesty shall assume and discharge all the obligations and liabilities of the said commissioners.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: This is merely legal phraseology; the transfer is provided of the liabilities from the local harbour board to His Majesty. I have been informed by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McGregor) that there are no current liabilities.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: What amounts are paid out by the Harbour Commission for salaries?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: The only money that is expended is $200 a year to the harbour master. The harbour commissioners give their services gratuitously.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would suggest that the liabilities referred to in this resolution include liabilities incurred through neglect on the part of the Government to keep the harbour in a proper state of repair.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I am glad that the harbour of Pictou is so fully qualified to become Government property. The wharves are falling to pieces; the revenue is not nearly equal to the expenditure, and the minister evidently has found the conditions to be such that the property should be acquired by the Government. I would like to know whether a report has been made with regard to this matter, either to the minister or to the Department of Public Works. Let me tell the minister at once that I am in favour of the public ownership of harbours. The harbours of Sydney and North Sydney are now free ports; ships coming in have nothing to pay; no- harbour dues are collected. When the transfer which this resolution proposes has been effected, will the harbour dues no longer be payable in the harbour of Pictou? I should like to know also whether this change has been made at the request of the Harbour Commissioner's. In connection with the harbour of North Sydney the authority of the commission was simply cancelled and in that way the properties were vested in the Government. The harbour master at that port is a Government official; he looks after -ships which do business in the harbour. But -at North Sydney any obligation o.f the oommision was looked after by themselves; no obligations were assumed by the Government except the future obligation of effecting the necessary improvements and repairs. If similar conditions are to apply to the harbour of Pictou and the property i-s transferred to the Government free from obligation, I have no objection to 'the proposal; I think it is a step in advance.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: We want to do the same with Pictou as was done with North-

Sydney. The port is now in possession of His Majesty, the Harbour Commissioners being merely trustees or managers. The object of the resolution is to do away with the commission and to make Bi'etou a free harbour. The Harbour Commissioners waited upon the Government some time ago and urged that this 'be done.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are any 'bonds or other liabilities outstanding against the harbour?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: I had a careful investigation made before proposing the resolution. There are no liabilities whatever.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: When the minister says that ilt is proposed to make Pictou a free harbour, does he mean that wharfage dues will no longer be collected, that sick mariners' dues will not be charged, and that the ordinary expenses of shipping which apply at other ports will not apply at Pictou?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: As soon as this transfer is made, no wharfage dues will be charged alt Pictou. Siok mariners' dues, which are separately covered by statute, will etoll be charged.


Frank S. Cahill: Why make a difference between Pictou harbour and other harbours and wharves? As I understand the matter, when the Public Works Department builds a wharf at any point, that wharf is handed over for management and collection of dues to the Department of Marine, and apparently that has been done in this case. When, however the question of expenditure is involved or when it is proposed to make a wharf free, it is handed back to the Department of Public Works. What led the Government to come to the conclusion that this wharf in preference to others should be free and should be handed back to the Department of Public Works for maintenance when other wharves have to pay wharfage dues?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: Generally speaking, wharves throughout Canada are not only constructed by the Department of Public Works but maintained under that department except where there is a good deal of shipping. The large ports of Montreal, Vancouver, Quebec, have, of course harbour commissions which administer the ports lor the Crown. Then there are smaller ports similar to Pictou, at which there has beer a good deal of shipping, gnd it has been the custom for many years for the Department of Public Works to transfer such wharves to the Department of Marine. Had the
shipping at Pictou harbour kept up and the revenue likewise kept up, I would not be asking hon. members now to pass this resolution. I would not want to convey to the committee the impression that the wharves at Pictou harbour are in a dilapidated condition. They are, I am informed, in very good condition but some repairs will have to be made probably next year, and the revenue has not been sufficient to pay even the harbourmaster who draws a salary oi $200 a year. There would not be a twenty-five cent piece left out of revenue for repairs, and in the public interest, if repairs are necessary, they ought to be done at the expense of the public. There is nothing now in the Estimates for repairs to this harbour, but next year or some other year there may be, and, therefore, I am asking the transfer to be made now.


Frank S. Cahill: I have in mind some
wharves on the Timiskaming lakes, which wharves are in charge of the Marine Department which collects wharfage dues there. I want to know why this particular dock is picked out as one for special treatment as against wharves on smaller lakes and inland waters where the farmers have to pay charges for the privileges of taking their goods over the docks both in shipping the goods out and in shipping them in. For instance, at Haileybury and Ville Marie the farmers have to pay dues for the privilege oi shipping their hay over the docks to the market; they have no railroad, and they tell me that in the last few years they have been suffering quite a hardship in having to pay what they consider very high wharfage charges at those points.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: If the condition of the wharf to which my hon. friend refers is such that it needs repairs and the revenue is not sufficient to cover the cost of making those repairs, then it would be quite in order for the hon. member to ask whatever Government happened to be in power at the time, to make a transfer, the same as I am asking now. There is, however, 4 p.m. a difference between local wharves as compared with an important harbour such as Pictou. I have been informed that $1,000,000 has been spent on Pictou harbour; that there are large and important locks there, to look after which engineers are required, and the rev-'enue does not permit of that. I am quite sure the hon. member would not want an expenditure that has been made, amounting now to $1,000,000, not to be properly looked after. The harbour commissioners

have not -revenue enough to do the work; the Department of Marine has not the authority to do it, and I hope hon. members will agree with me that this transfer is not going to mean any very heavy additional expense to the country.


Frank S. Cahill: The wharf to which I refer has a larger revenue than the wharf about which the minister is speaking, and I am-sure the people there deserve just the same treatment as the people at Pictou or at any other place. In fact, they deserve perhaps a little better treatment because they are pioneers opening up a new country. Has the Government any set plan as to how these different wharves throughout the country are administered and why should they select one particular wharf for special treatment? Is it the policy of the Government that when a wharf becomes dilapidated under the administration of the Marine Department to transfer it back to the Public Works Department, and then when repairs are made, to transfer it back agaii to the Marine Department?
Mr. BALLAlNTYNE: The general policy is that wharves at which there is any large quantity of shipping, are transferred to the Department of Marine. In the case of Haileybury wharf, I should understand from the remarks of my hon. friend that the revenue is quite sufficient to keep that wharf in a proper state of repair. But supposing, for argument's sake, that were not so, it would be quite in order for the Minister of Marine to ask that that wharf be transferred from the Marine Department to the Public Works Department. If the revenue had kept up at Pictou harbour the same as it has apparently kept up at Haileybury harbour, I should not be asking that this resolution pass.


Mr. BUREAU:: How many harbour commissioners are there at Pictou and by whom are they appointed?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: The Governor in
Council appoints the harbour commissioners. The following harbour commissioners were appointed on October 19, 1912; Mr. D. Sutherland, chairman; Mr. Thomas Cantley, Mr. Hugh Murray, Captain William Fraser and George H. Macdonald. None of these five commissioners receive any remuneration.


Jacques Bureau: According to the wording of this resolution, I understand this commission exists by virtue of a statute and that the minister is now asking for the repeal of that statute. These commissioners
[Mr. Ballantyne.l
who administer the harbour of Pictou are appointed under this particular law which created the harbour of Pictou. Is it the intention of the minister hereafter to have some employees of his department or another commission or somebody else look after the harbour, because after this commission goes out of existence, there will be nobody to look after the harbour except the Department of Marine.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: When this resolution and the Bill founded on it are passed, the responsibility of the harbour of Pictou is transferred from the Marine Department to the Public Works Department, and the Public Works Department, I am informed, already have engineers at Pictou who would have to take on the additional duty of looking after the locks and wharves there. This is simply a transfer of responsibility from one department of the Government to another.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The resolution does not seem to be very well worded. It reads:
Resolved, that it is expedient to repeal the Acts relating to the harbour of Pictou, in the province of Nova Scotia, and to transfer tne property, rights and assets now held fcy the harbour commissioners to His Majesty in the right of Canada, and to provide that His Majesty shall assume and discharge all the obligations and liabilities of the said commissioners.
Does that mean, according to my hon. friend, that after the transfer of the property to the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Public Works will simply carry on the usual work of administering that property and repairing it, or does it mean something more, namely, that according to the language used in the resolution, there are really liabilities? If not, why use the words:
And to provide that His Majesty shall assume and discharge all the obligations and liabilities of the said commissioners.
The minister, of course, states that a rigid inspection has taken place under the direction of some officer of his department, and that he has personal knowledge that there are no liabilities at all to be assumed by the Government.


Air. BALLANTYNE:: This resolution has been passed upon by parliamentary counsel, and I must accept his phraseology and defer to his knowledge in the matter. The commissioners are going to be relieved of all their authority and henceforth the responsibility will, be vested in the Minister of Public Works.


Rodolphe Lemieux: According to the inspection of the books made by my hon. friend's officers there are no liabilities as implied in the words of the resolution. The meaning of the word "liabilities" is generally understood.


William Duff: Before the resolution carries I should like to have it distinctly understood in what sense the harbour of Pictou will be free when the Bill which is to be based upon the resolution becomes law. I should not like the plain unqualified statement to reach the shipping men that the harbour is going to be free. In my opinion, if the resolution and the subsequent Bill are passed, the shippers of goods in Pictou harbour will have to pay the same wharfage dues as do people who use any other public wharves in Canada. The same applies to ships going in or out of Pictou harbour. They will have to pay the same pilotage dues as ships in other parts of the country, so the same harbour dues and all other fees so that in these respects Pictou harbour will not be any different from other ports in Canada.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: That is right


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wonder if my hon.
friend would submit the report which the accountant made in regard to the books of the Harbour Commission of Pictou. I am always afraid of assuming new liabilities. I have recently passed St. John, N.B., which is a great city that I much admire. I remember some years ago the Government assumed the liabilities and obligations of the harbour of St. John, and they proved very heavy indeed; and although I do not imagine that the same huge expenditure will be made in the harbour of Pictou, yet I am always suspicious of any future or past liabilities assumed by the Government in regard to harbours. As I say, I have just seen St. John and I can guess how many millions were sunk in the Bay of Fundy, and I should not like to assume responsibilities of the same proportions in connection with any other harbour in Canada.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: If it is the pleasure of the committee to pass this resolution, I shall be very glad, when we are in committee on the Bill, to give all the assets and liabilities in detail.


Mr.   BUBEAU@: As I understand any
schedule of tolls for the harbour, and all dues, dockage, moorage, etc., are to be submitted to the Minister of Marine, and these are to be subject to his approval. I understand from the minister that the Harbour
Commission is to go out of existence and that the harbour will come under the control of the Department of Public Works. How is it to be administered? Is the Department of Public Works going to be the supreme authority to regulate tolls and charges and to appoint those whom it pleases the minister or the deputy minister to put in charge of the department, or is it the intention to have some commission or other to supervise the harbour?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: It is not the intention to re-appoint the commission there. The harbour at Pictou will be under the Department of Public Works just like hundreds of other harbours throughout Canada. The only important change that will be made will be in regard to wharfage dues, or, as some people call them, "top" wharfage dues, which will disappear with the local harbour commission itself. The responsibility for the harbour and the property of the Crown in connection therewith will rest entirely with the Minister of Public Works, and as the Department of Public Works has local engineers down there now no additional expenditures will be entailed. It will simply mean a little more work for the engineers of the Department of Public Works located at Pictou; they, instead of the local harbour board, will have to look after the harbour, the locks and piers.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that
there will be no more harbour dues on steamers going to Pictou and that the port will be free.


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: It will be a free
port in the sense indicated my the hon. member (Mr. Duff). The pilotage dues and sick mariners' dues will be charged, but the small fees levied on the cargoes of ships inbound and outbound will be abolished.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the minister say
that in future his policy will be to hand over to the Public Works Department the properties of any harbours which are in financial difficulties?


Mr.   B A L L AN TYNE@: That will be the
policy of the Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the minister
will wisely come to the conclusion that it is small business to collect dues from these wharves in different parts of the country. I remember well, many years before the minister came into the House, when a Bill was passed by which these wharves were to be taken over by the Marine Department and dues were to be charged. There was a vigorous opposition to the Bill and it

was only by reason of the fact that it was a Government measure under a minister who is now a judge of the Supreme Court, the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, that it was passed. But there was never any other opinion than that these wharves were built for the public convenience of people who as a rule are located in isolated places where, unless there were wharves, they could not get any benefit from passing ships. For many years the Government had no intention whatever of making any charge. It is quite proper of course that there should be a man to look after the wharves and to see that they do not fall into disrepair, but it is not worth while for any Government to collect these small fees that are charged. The minister is going to abolish the system in Pictou, and the sooner he applies it to the other harbours of the same class the better. Pictou harbour is an important one. In my own county there are many harbours that are not under the control of the board but they have Government wharves which are indispensable; and the policy inaugurated within the last few years of collecting wharfage in these places is in my opinion highly undesirable. I trust that the policy to be established in regard to Pictou harbour will extend to every other place in Nova Scotia where there are public wharves on which fees are now collected.	.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 121 respecting the harbour of Pictou in Nova Scotia.
Motion agreed to and Bill read a first time. ,	'	!



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT, 1907, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 4 consideration in committee of Bill No. 57 (from the Senate) to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907-Hon. Mr. Meighen-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-signatures requisite for applications to refer disputes to boards and for statutory declarations accompanying them:
Mr. MEIGHEN:: The reason for the adjournment of this clause was the calling the attention of the committee by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the amendment of 1910 and to the fact that that evidently was overlooked in the preparation of this Bill. That is quite correct and it should not have been overlooked. It is the intention of the Minister of Labour that clause 3 of the amendment

of 1910, which is the clause referred to by the leader of the Opposition, shall still be law. I therefore beg to move:
That clause 2 be amended by adding thereto the following after the word "Act" in the first line thereof the following:
"As amended by section 3 of chapter 29 of the statutes of 1910."
That is the part that repeals section 3 of the statutes of 1910.
And by changing the semicolon at the end of subclause (b) thereof to a period; and by adding to paragraph (d) of the new section 16 the following words:
"Where a dispute directly affects employees in more than one province, and such employees are members of a trade union having a general committee authorized to carry on negotiations in disputes between employers and employees, and so recognized by the employers, may be signed by the chairman or president, and by the secretary of the said committee."
These words sought to be added by the -amendment are the exact words that are inserted by section 3 of the amendment of 1910.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before this
clause as amended carries I should like once again to direct the minister's attention to the effect of the changes he is proposing as to the manner in which the application shall be made for a board of conciliation and investigation under this Act. The minister has made a change, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. McDonald) in regard to subsection (d). If he is to be logical and consistent he will have to make a similar change when he comes to subsection (e), which is part of the same section, and such a change is certain to occasion some discussion. If he does not make it there will be discussion just the same because of the *amendment he is now proposing. In order to make clear the significance of what is *being done, and which I think should not be done, let me state the purpose of the original sections.
The existing sections are to provide a method by which an application for a board of conciliation and investigation is to be made. There are two kinds of situations to be taken into account. One is where an application is to be made by a union, or by men who are members of a union, and the other is where the application comes from those who are not members of a union. The law as it exists requires that before an application can be made to the Government for the appointment of a board of conciliation and investigation where it affects union members there shall be a majority vote of those who are members of the union. That is to say that if a meeting of

the union is being held and if members wish to make application for a board a vote of the members present will have to be taken so that there will be something of record to show that the matter has been considered and that there was an actual majority in favour of making the application. There is a further provision as regards special meetings, that a notice shall be posted stating the object for which the meeting is called and that a ballot shall be taken at the meeting in reference to the particular subject in dispute. The minister is doing away with any necessity of calling any special meeting of the union to consider the matter, and is proposing to do away altogether with the necessity of taking any vote, with the result that if an application is made to the department a dispute may arise on the question as to whether a majority of those who belong to the union really made an application. Some employer might take exception to a hoard being granted on the ground that the majority required by the Act did not vote in favour of the application. There is, under the amendment proposed, no means of deciding that fact other than by taking the word of the particular persons who put in the application. As the Act stands to-day there is a recorded vote to which reference can be made and which is all sufficient to satisfy the minister as to the application having been made in the Tight way.
Now we come to the application to be made by any group of men who are not members of a trade union in regard to a dispute that arises. The Act at present requires that three days' notice shall be posted and that a vote shall he taken of the men who attend a meeting to discuss the question of an application to the Government for a board of conciliation and investigation. All parties know about it, those that are interested attend. If the majority decide in favour of an application for a board, they have a right to obtain a board in that way; a record of the vote on the application has been made, and it is beyond dispute. This has worked out, as far as 1 know, perfectly satisfactorily. It has occasioned trouble or embarrassment to no one. The minister now proposes to do away with that precaution and to say that there shall be no vote taken, he proposes to do away with the necessity of posting a three days' notice in regard to the calling of a meeting and simply to permit any group of men, without a vote and without a meeting, without any reference to any special matter in dispute, to make application to the Government for a board.
I think the effect of it will be to create all kinds of difficulties foT the minister in granting, or in determining whether he has the right or not to grant, a board, and I think it will, in many cases, act prejudicially to the interests of all concerned. I also 'think that it may lead to an undue interference with an established business by enabling any two men where it suits particular individuals, to go around with a sheet of paper and solicit the names of different men who may or may not belong to a union, and, obtaining the required number of names, .to secure from the Government the right to have the whole machinery of the Act set in motion.
In this connection I must point out the bearing of another amendment which the minister has .suggested-which I think is entirely wrong. Under the llaw as it. stood, witness fees were based on the rates allowed in the different provinces. But the minister has changed that provision so as to allow the payment of a minimum of $4 a day to witnesses, although when the Minister of Labour introduced the measure in the other House he asked that the minimum should be only $2 a day. Some discussion took place there as to the $2 not being a sufficient amount for experts, and the figure was changed to $4 so. as to arrive a't an all round figure which may apply to all .classes Of witnesses. The effect of bringing in this .amendment .along with the .permission to. allow payment of $4 to all witnesses will be .simply this: In regard to a large number of disputes that will be dealt with under this law, any two individuals in a mining camp, or anywhere else, who think that they would like to start an investigation into a business of a particular concern will go around among the members of a camp, tell them that if they so wish they will be called as witnesses in regard to a particular investigation and that they will get $4 a day as witnesses; and if these two persons get a majority, without any vote, without any meeting, without any discussion on the question one way or the other,-if the law is carried out, the Government will have to grant a board for such investigation. Now opening the door to possible proceedings of that kind is mischievous. It will only help, I think, ,in .some quarters to bring the Act into question in a way it has not been brought into question in the past. I would therefore like to make this last appeal to the minister-before he changes a section of the law which has not, so far as I am aware been embarrassing to any of the parties con-

cerned-that he leave well enough alone and not make these unnecessary amendments.


Arthur Meighen: The leader of the Opposition should remember that the author of this Bill is not myself but the Minister of Labour who administers the Act. The committee, of course, is well aware of that. The leader of the Opposition has before argued the point that he now re-introduces. It is a fact that the Minister of Labour contemplates by this amendment that a board may >be requested- in any single case (1) either by the calling of a meeting and the securing of a majority of all the members affected at that meeting, or (2) by securing a majority without calling a meeting, and saying to the minister that such majority duly authorizing two of the officers to ask for the board has been secured. The minister is of opinion that if over one-half want the board, that should be sufficient evidence to him of the desire of the men at least. Though that half may not have voted at a meeting, if they make the request by petition he thinks that should be sufficient and he thinks it is a much better safeguard against abuse-the requirement of the majority imperatively in every case-than was the provision of the old law that in many cases enabled a very small minority to act simply because that small minority happened to be the majority present at a meeting. That is his opinion, and I must say it does seem most reasonable. I do not for a moment think the leader of the Opposition has anything but the good of the Act in view, but he will recognize that what he suggests would be a restriction on the men. If time shows that that restriction is requisite the Minister of Labour may come back with an amendment to that end; but I would be very much surprised if time should show it to be requisite. Now that is the sum and substance of the whole matter. To repeat in one sentence: The minister is of the opinion, and I commend his view to the committee, that a majority of the men should have the right to ask a. board if that majority is certain, though not evidenced by a vote at a meeting duly called. So long as there is a majority he does not want to restrict the right; but there must be a majority as distinct from the old prerequisite which required nothing more than a majority present at a meeting though that might not be more than 10 per cent of the men affected.
The Minister of Labour intends by the amendment of clause 4, which has already
[Mr. Mackenzie King'd
been passed, that $4 should be the minimum for an allowance to- witnesses inclusive of expenses, believing that all witnesses should get the same throughout Canada. I would not apprehend that men should be anxious for a board in order that they might substitute $4, inclusive of expenses, for the wages they were drawing. It would seem to me that they would be paying quite a heavy penalty for the board if that were their only object ini asking for it.


Mr. CROTHERS:: I am sorry I was not present when these amendments were before the committee a few days ago, but I desire to say a word or two with respect to them even at this late stage.
I think that the provision in subsection D of section 16 is entirely too loose. It reads:
by employees who are members of a trade union, by two of its officers duly authorized by a majority of the members of the union.
What does the word "duly" mean? It will cause any amount of dispute and confusion to arise. I would suggest that the word " duly " be stricken out entirely and that the paragraph should read:
"By two of its officers authorized in writing."
It would be well to have the authority given in writing otherwise you will find a man saying: "You told me on the street -corner to do so and so " and the response being made " No, I never told you anything of the sort." Whereas if the request received from the man on the street corner were signed by him it would be much better. As I see it the provision in its present form is useless.
Then take the provision that there shall be a minimum sum of $4 allowed for witness fees. The provision should not be in that form because a " minimum " of $4 means that the payments may be a great deal more than that amount. I have no objection whatever to the provision going through if the word " minimum " is stricken out. If the provision is left in its present form you will have people in one province claiming that they ought to get $6 or $8 a day because the Act only mentions a minimum. If the sum is fixed at $4 without any reference to minimum I have no objection to it. Then the witness will get $4 whether it is in the province of Prince Edward Island or the province of British Columbia. Leave the provision as it is -and it will result in all sorts of disputes because I know the kind of claims

that are put forth for witness fees and allowances of that kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I share the views which have been expressed by the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) I think the $4 well represents what may be due a witness for spending his day in the interest of social justice, and no encouragement to demands for a greater amount should be given by allowing the word " minimum " to remain. On the other hand, I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that in these days of labour unrest no encouragement should he given to agitators or ill-advised persons who by their simple whim might direct a strike to take place unless a board is granted. I think that evidence of the desire of the men to have a board appointed should be very clearly demonstrated, not by mere word of mouth but in writing, as my hon. friend the ex-minister says-at all events it should be a document authenticated by the signatures of responsible people holding an official position in the union or in the local organization of the employees.
We must not do anything to bring this legislation into contempt. Let me say to my hon. friend who is now piloting the Bill through the House (Mr. Meighenj that this legislation-the credit for the drafting of which, 1 need not say, must he given to my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition-enjoys to-day a world reputation. As my hon. friend knows, it has been adopted by several states of the Union, by some of the British dominions, and now there is before the French Parliament legislation based on our Industrial Disputes Act. Before I left France a few months ago it was my pleasure and my pride to hand over to the President of the Council, M. Millerand, all data, statistics and literature on what is generally called the Lemieux Act. He was preparing legislation for compulsory 'investigation and arbitration in ceitain cases of industrial disputes, and he repeated to me what he had said on previous occasions, that he knew of no better legislation to settle industrial troubles than the Canadian legislation. I would ask my hon. friend who is piloting the amendments to this legislation through the House to be very careful not to "denature" the spirit of this legislation-not tc so amend it as to bring it into contempt by the people. Therefore I would ask him not to press the amendment which he has just moved whereby some employees might
at any given moment by a mere whim ask for a board when no board was really needed. The desirability of putting the machinery of the Act into motion is always a very delicate question for the Minister of Labour to decide, and it must be known throughout the land that the machinery is put into motion only on a real stated case when there is autenticated evidence that a grievance exists and that a board is needed.


Mr. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: It
seems to me that there is a misapprehension in the minds of both the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) with regard to the intent of the amendments of this Act. The original clause provides:
If made by employees members of a trade union shall be signed by two of its officers duly authorized by a majority vote of the members of the union, or by a.vote taken by ballot of the members of the union present at a meeting called on not less than three days' notice for the purpose of discussing the question.
The amendment provides:
That if by its employees members of a union authority shall be by a majority vote of all the members of that particular union, and not by a majority at any particular meeting.
That is, the majority of the members present at any particular meeting as provided for in the original clause. So that instead of making it easier, the amendment is simply providing that the request shall represent the desire of a majority of the members of the union affected, employing the words introduced by the minister on the suggestion of the hon. member for Tim-iskaming (Mr. McDonald).
With regard to the second objection raised by the hon. leader of the Opposition, I am not going to be dogmatic in regard to it, but I think if you read clause (e) you will find that provision is clearly made for calling a meeting on three days' notice and taking a vote where the men affected are not members of a union.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that my hon. friend's impression of the amendment?


Donald Nicholson: I would say so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will read the amendment he will find he is quite mistaken.


Donald Nicholson: The amendment reads:
By employees some or all of whom are not members of a trade union, by two of their

number duly uthorized by a majority of such employees. If such authorization is obtained in whole or in part by a vote at a meeting, such meeting shall be called on not less than three days' notice and the vote shall be by ballot.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment now means that it by any chance they should take a vote and decide to make application they cannot take a vote unless there has been three days' notice of the meeting given. The old law said that there must be three days' notice given, and then a vote at the meeting "would decide whether or not an application would be made. The amendment is quite different and changes the whole effect of the clause. As it is now the amendment proposed leaves it open to any two men to go around in any camp or community that is unorganized, get a certain number of names, and thereby compel ilhe granting of a board. I am sure tbait my hon. friend the present Minister of Labour (Hon.- Mir. Robertson) and his predecessor (Mr. Orothers-) will agree with me that that is not a wise change in the Act. I believe that the intent of the Minister of Labour is thoroughly good, bult as given expression to in these amendments it is thoroughly bad, and I hope that the amendments will not be persisted in.


Arthur Meighen: I should make reference to the new suggestion 'that has been made and which has been supplemented by the remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). I would feel like taking the responsibility of accepting an amendment, moving it myself for that matter, to make it clearer that the authorization must be in writing, because I feel that that is the intention of the minister, following the expression used as the Rill was submitted to this House. If that is done in clause (d), it would require also to be done in clause (e); so I move:
-to further amend clause 2 by striking out the word "duly" where it appears in the twenty-third and twenty-ninth lines of the first page of the Bill and by adding after the word "authorized" where it appears in both of the said lines, the words "in writing."
The remarks I made before, of course, apply to the request of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). It is one of the infirmities under which our system suffers that in one House the minister responsible, and who has the actual administration, cannot be present. That is inevitable, either in the House or in the Senate, and it happens now that we suffer under that in the House of Commons The minister in charge of this Bill undoubtedly believes in the Act and in the prin-

ciple underlying it. He has had to do with the administration of the Act for many years in his capacity as member and officer of the trade union, and for some considerable time in his capacity as Minister of Labour. He thinks the Act is to be improved by enabling a majority to express itself in any way. It is conceivable, of course, that the provisions o.f the Act may be abused even now, but he is removing one source of abuse, the case where a mere minority may put the whole Act into operation,-because even if three days' notice is given, members of a trade union may find it difficult to attend a meeting. He is removing that, and having removed it he does not feel like going further and hampering further the employees. He thinks that if it is difficult to hold a meeting the men ought to be allowed to express themselves by petition in writing. That being his deliberate view, and that view being not open, in my humble judgment,-which, I admit, is not worth very much-to serious objection, I do not feel like taking the responsibility of going further in the way of amendment to the clause.
Mr. CROTHERiS:	The amendment proposed by the minister does not sufficiently safeguard the interests of all parties concerned. I am inclined to the belief that the workingmen ought to have an opportunity of discussing matters of so much importance. If this amendment carries, any individual can go round and get Tom, Dick and Harry to sign this paiper asking for a board. On the other hand, if the men gathered together in a meeting they would have full opportunity of discussing the situation, pro and con, and it might be found that few were in favour of asking for a board. I believe that the interests of the workingmen, the employer and the public will be best served if the men have an opportunity of discussing the matter before a board is asked for. Much difficulty may be created if the principle of the amendment is adopted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers). Hon. members on bolth sides should regard favourably the presentation off any just grievance by the workingmen. But on the other hand, we must not allow the workingmen to be worked by some ingenious agitator who may easily go from one mine to another, from one establishment to another, and endeavour to create trouble between capital and labour. I want to give this legislation a proper working basis and to see that when put into motion the machinery of

the law shall not ibe hampered. But let us not forget thiaJt there are in all countries people who are attempting to create- the word may seem to he a little strong- revolution. The workingmen are amply protected toy this legislation; -my hon. friend should, not insist upon affording a weapon which agitators may use to bring the legislation into contempt. Has there been any petition from any labour organization asking foT this amendment?


Arthur Meighen: I ooulld not say as to that, but I stated when the Bill was here before that the amendment in its present form was (approved by the Trades and Labour Congress through its executive. That is my information from (the Minister of Labour.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I travelled lately with Mr. Tom Moore, and we discussed (this legislation. He did not suggest any such amendment as this, but he did suggest, as the leader of the (Opposition did when' the matter was previously discussed, that a provision making the legislation applicable to oonstatoles should be inserted in the Act. I would like to have the views of Mr. Moore with regard to this proposed amendment, because he is a level-headed labour man; he is not an agitator.


Arthur Meighen: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: For many
years the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, through their executive, have waited on the Government once a year. I have looked at the proceedings as reported and I have found nothing in any representations which they have made through the executive at that meeting which pertains at all to the changes now proposed. I am perfectly sure that such representations have not been made as coming from any discussions or resolutions of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, What I think has probably happened is that, as regards paragraph (d) one or two members of the executive have expressed to the minister the opinion that where there is a trade union, they would prefer to leave to the trade union leaders the matter of getting a majority of the union to ask for a board instead of having a meeting. I can understand their wishes in that matter. The minister, however, has gone further than that; he has added paragraph (e) to some extent paralleling paragraph (d). Paragraph (e) deals with men who are not organized at all or some of whom are organized, and in seeking to meet the wishes of others in regard to paragraph (d) he has got into a difficulty, he never foresaw as regards paragraph (e). According to the Bill as it stands now, any two men can go around and secure (signatures, and even if the minister puts in the amendment of the hon. member for Elgin West (Mr. Crothers), that is, to add the words " in writing," that will not alter matters for they will get the signatures in writing. Therefore, notwithstanding what the motives of those two men may be, the Government will be compelled to grant a board and to allow the company's business to be examined by the different representatives who would be put on that board. If the door is left open in that way, opportunity is going to he given for all kinds of mischievous proceedings, and inas-



much as this paragraph is the one that relates simply to proceedings asking for a board, the minister would be well advised to leave this section alone for the present.
If the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, through their executive, ask for this change at a subsequent session, we shall then be justified in considering the matter further. But in the absence of any representations in writing which the minister can present to Parliament, I do not think that simply for the sake of forcing this through, he ought to go contrary to what I believe would be the wish of the Minister of Labour himself if he were in a position to be in this House and to see the effect of the amendment as it is pointed out at the present time.
Mr. ME1GHEN:	The minister has read
the arguments presented by the hon. member including the ones hearing on this very point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Arthur Meighen: I laid them before the minister separately at the time, and he told me that this Bill had been laid before the executive of the Congress and had been approved. I did not say that the Congress had, either in writing or in any other way, requested this change, and I do not know whether they did or not. I merely know that it is the opinion of the minister-and as to its correctness I have not the faintest doubt in the world-that this change has been approved by the Congress.
There is something to which the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) referred to which I did not refer. I think if my memory serves me right, the Bill as introduced provided a uniform allowance of $4 a day, but objection was raised in the other House-we are all abandoning the rule now, so I shall have to follow suit- that there would be no provision at all for two cases. I am not sufe whether the two cases were mentioned, but one was, and the one that was mentioned was that there was no provision that would enable the board to rely upon the attendance of expert witnesses. Consequently, a minimum was fixed. The other case is this.
5 p.m. Very often boards are held at points where it is impossible that $4 will be sufficient to cover anything like remuneration and expense, or even expenses alone. Usually, this fee will do so, and the minister feels that $4 will be virtually the uniform chbrge everywhere, but he submitted to the argument that it would not cover every case and consequently, he

yielded the point and had the fee of $4~ fixed as the minimum.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In Ontario, I understand expert witnesses are paid a very much larger fee than the ordinary witness fee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Section 34 of the Act
reads:
Every person who is summoned and duly attends as a witness shall be entitled to an allowance for expenses according to the scale for the time being in force with respect to witnesses in civil suits in the superior courts in the province where the inquiry is being conducted.
I understand now that we fix the amount of the witness fee at $4.


Arthur Meighen: As a'minimum.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend says that this word " minimum " is to protect the case of an expert.


Arthur Meighen: That is what was urged in the Senate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not necessary. In the Quebec courts an expert is entitled to a larger fee than an ordinary witness receives. Of course, it has to be established that he is an expert. In my own practice I have seen quite often-and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) knows it too- that such expert witnesses as architects, doctors or civil engineers appearing before a court are entitled by the laws of the province to a special fee. Therefore, my hon. friend is opening a dangerous ground for fees which, under ordinary circumstances, might be quite satisfactory at the fixed sum of $4.


Arthur Meighen: It was the minister's intention to fix the fee at $4.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why say "minimum"?


Arthur Meighen: I must admit I do not see much force in the objection to which I referred and which was raised in the Senate. It would seem to me the objection was covered, but it is easy to conceive of cases where, for example, if the inquiry were held, say in Ottawa and men were brought here, it would take $4 a day to pay their expenses; they would be getting less than they were getting before. This is an allowance to cover expenses and fees. The section does not refer to Lees at all. It reads:
Every person who is summoned and duly attends as a witness shall be entitled to an allowance tor expenses according to the scale for the time being in force-


Rodolphe Lemieux: "With respect to witnesses in civil suits."


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the allowance is to witnesses in civil suits; it is an allowance for expenses. As I understand it, the whole allowance they will get now is $4.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A minimum of $4.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I mean. But the minimum of $4 is to cover everything the witness gets, because everything he gets is an expense allowance. That is what I am arguing.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: A man's transportation is over and above the amount he gets per day?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, he gets transportation,


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Justice knows that after a case is finished, the witnesses will go before a registrar of the court or the prothonotary and have their fees taxed. Those fees include their travelling allowance and expenses for being called as witnesses in the case. If they stay one day, two days, three days, a week they are paid so much per day in addition to their travelling expenses.


Mr. MORPHY:: The question raised by this section involves an addition to the rights and powers of the workman, making it easier for him to obtain a board under the Act, and in that sense, I think the change is to be commended. There may be, although such have not been clearly pointed out within my hearing, special cases where it is difficult to obtain a meeting, but I would understand that in 99 cases out of 100, a meeting of the men belonging to a union could easily be convened because they will more or less live in the same neighbourhood. As regards the form of the section, I think it is rather left-handedly drawn, and I would suggest that it would he much clearer, no matter what principle is to he adopted if it read in this way:
The application and the declaration accompanying it shall be signed, if made, by two officers of any trade union so appearing who have been authorised in writing by a majority of the members thereof.
At present it reads:
The application and the declaration accompanying it shall be signed, if made by employees who are members of a trade union, by two of its officers duly authorised by a majority of the members of the union.
I do not like that word " duly." I agree with my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) and my hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) that it does not leave the form of authorization sufficiently clear in the public mind. One union might consider that it was duly authorized by one course of procedure, while another union might adopt an altogether different course, also under the conviction that it was duly authorized. The authorization should be clear and beyond dispute. I think that the section as it is proposed is undoubtedly adding to rather than taking from the powers of workmen to obtain boards, and in that respect it should be commended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that the explanation of the difficulties, we are having at the moment arises from the fact that while there are two clauses which we have been discussing, some of us have had our minds fixed only on subsection (d) while others have been speaking in reference to subsection (e). The minister just a moment ago said that he had acquainted the Minister of Labour with what I had said and that that hon. gentleman was quite aware of the points I had raised. May I mention the fact that up to to-day I have not discussed subsection (e) at all. The point I am raising in regard to subsection (e) I was reserving until we had reached that subsection, and in discussing subsection (d) I pointed out at the time these objections: first of all, of departing from the requirement that a vote be taken and registered in a record, and secondly, that some notice of the meeting be made compulsory so that those interested should be present. These sections were in the previous Act in the provisions corresponding with subsection (d) of this Act, and it would have been well to retain them in that subsection. However, they have been stricken out; and while I can quite understand that officers of unions may have made representations to the minister that they preferred to have subsection (d) in the form in which he now proposes it, I will venture the opinion that no representative of any union ever asked the minister to change subsection (e) to the form in which it now stands, and I am perfectly sure the Minister of Labour does not yet perceive the full significance of this subsection as it now stands or he would not permit it to come before this committee. May I suggest to my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) a concrete case and leave it to his own judgment as to whether he thinks it wise that the change proposed

should be made? Let us assume that the (Street railway system of Stratford is operated by men, none of whom are members of a trade union. The men that work on that railway may or may not be organized,
I am not sure; but I am assuming for the sake of argument that none of them are members of a trade union. Under the amendment now being introduced, any person who has a grievance against the railway .system of Stratford can go to any two men employed on that railway and persuade them to circulate a petition among their fellow-workers asking for a board of investigation into the operations of that railway system. They may say:	"There
are certain things which we desire to bring out in regard to this company s business, and we can bring them out if we obtain a board, because we can put on that board any person we please and so bring the company into court, so to speak. They can investigate the books of the company, compel the production of documents, examine witnesses under oath, and drag the business of that transportation system into a court of investigation and have its affairs inquired into at the expense of the Government, all at the instance of any two men -who, for any consideration that may be offered them, can contrive to secure enough names to a petition asking for a board. Would my hon. friend from North Perth wish to have the great public utilities of this country-the street railways, the railway systems of Canada, the coal mines, the metaliiferous mines, the telegraphs, the telephones, and all other great public service utilities-would my hon. friend, I say, desire to have these large and important enterprises subjected to interference of that kind on the part of people who may happen to he nothing but mischief makers? If he would not, he cannot support the amendment, which reads:
by two of their number duly authorized by a majority of such employees.
The old Act required that there should be a majority vote, and further, that there should be a notice of three days so that every one likely to be affected could attend the meeting and say whether or not the application should be put in. I am as sure as that I am standing here that the Minister of Labour would not for one moment bring in the amendment if he saw its significance. I am sure he has not seen it, and I therefore again ask my hon. friend not to press it at this time.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (Algoma):: The
leader of the Opposition apparently desires 
what I was asking for when the Bill was before the House a few evenings ago, and that is, that before a board shall be asked for there shall have been an expression of opinion by a very substantial number of those who were interested and not at the instance of two or three sore heads, if I may use that expression. Under the law as is has hitherto stood, all that was necessary was for two agitators to arrange to call a (meeting by giving three days' notice. There might be half a dozen men or so at the meeting, Which might be called at such time and in such manner as might not meet the convenience of the employees generally. But if a majority of the men present 'at that meeting voted in favour of the application then they had the right to demand a board. Under the amendment as it has been introduced there must be a majority of all the imen. Now, the assumption of my hon. friend that agitators can go arourjd and get a written authorization asking for a board simply at the request of some who might desire to embarrass the company for which they were working, must be based on the previous assumption that the men, to say the very least, have very little sense of responsibility in regard to their work or in regard to what they owe the public; and if that is the case, surely it is a safeguard to provide that the board shall be granted only at the .demand of a majority of all the men and not because a very limited minority, as would undoubtedly happen in many instances, might ask for it. Under the Act as it stands at pr sent all that is required is that there shall be 'a majority of those present. I am not betraying any confidence when I say that I have discussed this subject personally with members of trades unions and also with the Minister of Labour, and I think that this provision is a wise one, It provides that there shall be a responsible body of employees behind any application for a Board of Conciliation. As stated by my hon. (friend from Maisonneuve, there are agitators throughout the length and breadth of this country who are ready to take advantage of any opportunity which may be inadvertently afforded them to create disturbance. It would be unwise to leave the door open for them to call meetings recklessly :


Rodolphe Lemieux: And take a surprise
vote:
Mr. NICHOLSON fAlgoma):	Yes. Yet,
if it were possible for a small number of men to convene a meeting and call for a

board, just such conditions as are apprehended might be brought about.
-Mr. MEIGHEN:	I think the committee
will readily concede that I have not tried to push this Bill unduly either in the House or in Committee. This is the third period to which it has been postponed, and if I had any doubt as to the Minister of Labour properly apprehending the clause I would ask that the committee rise again. But I have no doubt in the matter, because I know that the minister understands that he is here giving power to a majority to express itself by petition without a meeting, as well as power to a majority to express itself by petition at a meeting. He is giving that power to the majority whether they are all members of a trade union and likewise giving it to a majority whether they are not all members of a trade union but he feele that he can rely on the sense of responsibility of the majority, and, insisting on the majority, he does not feel like adding any other restrictions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We are experiencing
this afternoon one of the inconveniences of our constitution or of the rules of the House. Ingenious, able, persuasive and eloquent as my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior is, yet everybody feels that there is a strong doubt running through his mind as to whether this amendment is a wise one. He himself expresses quite cautiously, of course, regret that the minister in charge of the Department of Labour, one of the most important, if not the most important, during the present crisis, is not allowed to come and explain his legislation before this House as he has explained it before the other House. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is about to present amendments to the British North America Act. Has not the time come for some amendment which will enable ministers of the Crown to appear in each Chamber as their presence is needed according to the requirements of the legislation promoted in Parliament? We have an example this afternoon, because we must all realize that, notwithstanding the great ability of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, it would be a great advantage if the Minister of Labour were allowed to come on the floor of this House and explain why this amendment is proposed. We have an illustration this afternoon of the illogical position in which ministers are placed. In a few days legislation will be brought into this House which would require under ordinary circumstances the presence of the Postmaster 'General. The Postmaster General is asking Parliament to increase his Tight of taxing the people of Canada. He will not be on the floor of this House to explain his legislation. Why not have here what they have in other countries-responsible ministers passing from one Chamber to another and explaining their legislation? There is nothing contrary to common sense in that, it is pure logic, and as the British constitution is the result of precedent coming slowly down from one generation to another, why not in this House, (where progress is the banner word upon every one's lips, amend the constitution so as to permit a minister of the Crown to appear in each Chamber? Perhaps the Minister of Labour would be able to convince us that this amendment is wise, but apparently it is not a wise amendment since we find objection to it on both sides of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I noticed in the public press that the president of the labour organization of the province of Nova Scotia was on his way from (Sydney to Ottawa about this Bill. Has there been any communication between that official and the department in reference to the Bill? If he is coming here for that purpose I would be sorry if he should' find the door shut and that nothing could be done.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know anything about the incident that the hon. gentleman Tefers to. I would really in all kindness though suggest that as the Bill was before the Senate for several weeks, he started a little late to come all the way from Sydney.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It only takes two
days.


Arthur Meighen: They have their representatives here in the officers of the Department of Trades and Labour Congress. I feel sure that if the Minister of Labour had had any knowledge of this gentleman coming and had felt that it was worth while to ask that this Bill be deferred, be would have indicated that fact to me. He has not done so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Coming from a very
large labour centre, I knoiw something of the opinions of the labour men and I am not afraid to allow them to decide any business they may have before them. I think the minister will search in vain for any trouble resulting from the right which they enjoy of calling a meeting and deciding what shall be done. It is a time-honoured custom before a meeting is held to call their lodge together. Everybody interested at-

tends and at that lodge meeting they decide to call this meeting oi which three 'days' notice is required to be given. It is not called in a haphazard manner, the business is prepared beforehand and at that meeting the attendance is generally pretty large indeed, and there is a great deal of deliberation as to whether or not they will ask for a board. I would not like to see that right taken away.


Arthur Meighen: It is not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is to a certain extent. Now a majority can toe obtained without a meeting at all.


Arthur Meighen: That is an added right.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Once that is done they will never come together at all.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister say that under this provision they can get a majority by signing a petition and that after that is done they can have a meeting? I do not understand that to be the meaning of it; I understand that they must either accept one alternative or the other. The better way is to leave it to themselves 'to decide whether they want a board or not. We have had this system in practice for many years and I have never heard of any of those snap verdicts to which reference has been made this afternoon. In a mining camps or (mining centres, when there is a possibility of a strike in the air a snap verdict is impossible. The people are all together, they are on the qui vive as to what is going on, and if a meeting is properly advertised for three days, I can assure the minister that the difficulty would be to find a place large enough to hold those who would attend. I would be sorry to see that right taken away or any curtailment of the benefit that comes from open discussion of what is really being asked for and what the requirements are. We are doing away with a very salutary remedy. The desire is in every one's mind to tell what his grievances are. Conclusions may be reached at that meeting quite different from the ideas they entertain when they get together. The minister knows the proverbial notion about signing -a petition, and that in olden times the view as to petitions was "I will get enough men to sign a petition to behead the King if you give me permission to go around." Almost everybody will sign a petition; it is not Hike passing a vote at a public meeting. Coming as I d-o from a large labour centre and having been all my life in dose touch with labour men I

cannot allow this provision to pass without protesting against baking away any of 'the methods by which these men .are now transacting tfheilr busdnesB, and substituting for it something that, to say the least, is not as democratic as the present system.


Arthur Meighen: I have only one word to say in reply to my hon. friend. I would suggest that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (iMr. Lemieux) transfer 'the adjective "ingenious" which he applied to me to his friend to his right (Mr. McKenzie) who seeks to oppose this amendment on the ground fthaJt it takes something away from the working man, namely the right to discuss has grievance at a meeting. That right is preserved to (him intact and I think he will exercise it in virtually every case. But he has (the added right if he chooses, to express his will toy 'writing; no right is taken away.
Clause approved of on vote; Yeas 36, Nays, 29.
Bill reported and amendments read the first and second time.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER; When shall the Bill be read a third time?


Arthur Meighen: Now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose as the minister is determined to force the Bill through in its present form he might as well do- so now as la'ter on.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is it the unanimous consent of the House that the Bill be read a third' time.


Mr. CANNON:: I do not consent to the third reading of the Bill now. It ,is an important measure and rwe should follow the parliamentary rule with respect to it.


Georges Henri Boivin: The motion for third reading stands.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty Bill No. 108 to amend the Exchequer Court Act was read a second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-constitution of the court.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister please explain the object of this section.


Mr. DOHERTY:: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the Government contemplate making any new appointments?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill does not involve any new appointments for the present. The court now consists of the judge who .will be the president and an assistant judge, and the latter will naturally be the new puisne judge.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I certainly favour the change making the assistant judge a puisne judge, especially in view of the fact that he is so efficient a judge and possesses the confidence of all litigants in the country. I do not know why an exception is made in regard to the power to make general rules. Why should this power be confined to the president of the court? The rules of any other court are generally adopted by the judges of that court, the puisne judges acting in common with the president.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the law as it stands at the present time. But here, I
might point out, you have a court composed of two judges, and supposing those two judges did not agree on a particular rule, it would not be possible to make that rule. I think that is a sufficient reason why we should designate the president.


Mr. FORTIER:: I think it would be more regular to call the president the "chief justice," following the practice in our Superior Courts.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Parliament at the
session of 1919 decided that question, when some understanding was come to in regard to it with the members of the court: While there may be some advantages in uniformity, still I do not know that any evil is done by using this designation, "President of the Exchequer Court," and it being already on the statute book I did not see any sufficient reason to change it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Power to appoint a deputy judge.
John Howard Sinclair: This is rather an extraordinary section. I would like the minister to explain it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under section 140 of the Exchequer Court Act any person may be appointed a judge of the court who is or has been judge of a superior court or of a county court or who is a barrister of ten years' standing at the bar of any of the provinces. This section merely refers to those qualifications.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it not an innovation to appoint a judge temporarily?


Charles Joseph Doherty: To make such an appointment would be an innovation; but to .make a provision for deputy judges is not at all an innovation. For instance, there ,is provision in our law foir the appointment of deputy judges in the county court under similar circumstances; and under the law as i't stands there is provision for ,the 'appointment of a deputy judge for the Exchequer Court. That provision required modification because there was only one judge and-


John Howard Sinclair: I quite understand that there are temporary appointments, but what I want to direct the attention of the minister to is that under this amendment a temporary judge appointed at the pleasure of the Governor in Council might be appointed to try one particular case. I think that is objectionable, and that it would be better legislation to select a temporary judge from members of the bench.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is perhaps ground for objection on that account. This particular wording has been adopted because in the past it was found that if you appoint a deputy judge to act during the absence or illness of a judge, you have no definite thing that settles the moment when such absence or illness ceases. Therefore it was thought that the Governor in Council might be trusted to terminate the office of a deputy judge when the purpose of his appointment has been served. However, I would have no objection to make that read:
or upon a certificate of the President of the Court that the purpose to be served had been accomplished.

or something like that, so that we would have an official declaration of when the powers terminated1. Before making that amendment, however, there is another amendment which occurs to me, and which I think will commend itself to the committee. It seems to me that perhaps it is objectionable that the Governor in Council should have, as under the present terms of the section, general power to appoint a deputy judge for any reason, which he deems sufficient. I think there should be some check on that power. Therefore I desire to move that the section be amended by inserting in line twenty-two between the words "or" and "for" the words "at the request of the President." The section would then read:
The Governor in Council may, in the. case of the sickness or absence from Canada or engagement upon other duty of the President or the Puisne Judge, or, at the request of the President, for any other reason which he deems sufficient,-
and so on. The effect of that will be to limit the power of the Governor in Council to the three specified cases: Sickness, absence from Canada, or engagement upon other duties, of the president or of the puisne judge. I would be quite happy, however, if the hon. gentleman can suggest the language, to meet the objection which has been made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this not new legislation? I cannot recall a case where power has been vested in a judge to ask for the appointment, or practically to make the appointment, of a deputy judge.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He will not appoint the .deputy judge; he will simply request an .appointment. If the President of the Court exposes the necessity for there being a deputy judge, then the Governor in Council is empowered to appoint one, but the Presi-

dent of the Court does not designate the man who shall be appointed, nor is the Governor in Council bound to make the appointment. There is analagous power in the case of the Superior Courts of the province of Quebec and the Court of Appeal. If the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal represents that by reason of illness or some other impediment preventing one of the judges from carrying out his duties there is occasion for such an appointment!' there is power to appoint an assistant judge. So with the Superior Court, and my impression is, with other provincial courts. Quite recently we made a Similar provision for the purpose of providing an acting judge in the Supreme Court in cases where there might be occasion for doing so. This power to appoint a deputy judge has always existed in regard to the Exchequer Court. The difference is that we have to provide not merely for cases of absence or illness o<f the president or of the puisne judge, but also for absence through other causes which we cannot at the moment specify. For instance, the parties interested might be close relatives of the president of the court or of the puisne judge; there are many cases where a judge might find himself disqualified. These general terms were adopted to avoid the necessity for foreseeing all these cases. At the same time we are putting such a check upon the exercise of the power that there need be no apprehension that it will be unduly exercised. It cannot be exercised unless the President of the Court asks for it, and if the reasons given are deemed insufficient there is no obligation on the Governor in Council to exercise it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not object to the authority being in the Governor in Council to appoint an assistant or deputy judge for the time being and for special cause. If the minister will provide that the selection shall be made from among the judges of the Superior Court in the province where the action arises, I shall have no objection.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not proposed that the selection should be limited to judges oi the Superior Court, because if you did that you might be taking away from his own work a man who could not very well be spared. The qualifications required in the man to be appointed are exactly the same as will be required of a man to be appointed as judge, that is, he should be a judge of a Superior or County court, or a barrister of ten years' standing in the province. I do not think that the deputy judge should be required to possess greater qualifications than the judge himself.

Mr. McKENZIE .[DOT] A barrister of ten years' standing does not become a competent judge all at once. We have seven Supreme Court judges in Nova Scotia,-and I do not think that any occasion would arise to prevent any one of them from stepping outside his usual work to try a special case. I assume that conditions in other provinces are the same. There should be some provision to secure for the purposes of this- provision an experienced man who is in the public eye and against whose appointment there could be no reasonable objection.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is only to provide
for possible cases, which will be very few and far between. If one of these judges dies, the public will have to accept a barrister of ten years' standing as the permanent judge. Is there any very great danger that that barrister of ten years' standing would not be competent to act as deputy judge? The qualifications sufficient to justify a man's selection as permanent head of the court ought to be sufficient to justify his employment as deputy judge. Under this Bill, you may appoint as deputy judge a judge of another court if he be available, but to make it essential that you should take him away creates a situation where you may be embarrassed because there are courts and judges who have all the work they can do,


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: As these extraordinary
powers are being asked for probably on account of increased business before that tribunal, instead of appointing a temporary judge, why not have a third judge appointed permanently?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That has been considered, and we have given to the registrar certain powers contained in a subsequent section of this Bill, thus providing ample man-power, if I may use that expression, to carry on all the work of the court so long as that man-power is available. But it is to be foreseen that you may have accidents when your actual men are not all available, and this is merely to provide that when that accident happens-, we shall be able to call somebody in to do the work. The hon. gentleman's remedy would be to provide more men than are necessary to do the work, as a rule, because occassionally you may require, not an additional judge, but just somebody to take the place of a man who drops out on account of illness or some other cause of that kind. We have, as I have said, .satisfied ourselves
with conferring on the registrar the powers contained in a subsequent section, so that we shall have quite sufficient to attend to this work, with the presiding and the puisne judges as long as they are both available. But in the uncertainty of human events, we have to provide for the accidental cases where one of them might not be available, and we take the means of providing a temporary person instead of loading the country with a permanent judge at a permanent salary so as to have somebody, perhaps, for one week in the year, when he may be required to take the place of a judge who is ill.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: What salary will you
give to this temporary judge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No provision is made
in this Bill for a special salary to this deputy judge, because we cannot tell for how long we may want him. We may want him only for a week. We shall not give him a permanent salary because he will not be a permanent judge; he will be appointed when occasion requires, and his powers will terminate when the occasion for them terminates and just as is done with deputy judges provided for in the county courts, no provision is made for a salary. In most instances deputy judges who have been appointed in connection with county courts have worked without salary. In some exceptional eases where a long period of time is- involved or some exceptional heavy work has been put upon them, power has been asked to provide for remuneration for this temporary work. This is not a permanent position in any sense of the .word at all; it is making provision for a possible occasional, temporary need.


Ernest Lapointe: This power conferred
on the 'Governor in Council by this clause may not be used very frequently, but it creates a precedent. I think it is the first time. we give the Governor in Council power to appoint temporary judges.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The power already exists with regard to the Exchequer Court.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the change
then?
Mr. DOlHERTY: The change as I pointed out is that in the present legislation, we .are not limiting the power to specified cases of necessity.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.

After Eecess.
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-registrar, appointment and salary:


Mr. McMASTEE:: I would draw the attention of the minister to t-the expression " reside and keep an office at the. city of Ottawa, and be paid a salary." This might be interpreted to mean-what I do not believe to be the meaning intended-that out of his salary of $5,000 the person appointed must maintain an office. I presume that is not the intention, but I would suggest that the phraseology is somewhat unhappy


Charles Joseph Doherty: The phraseology in that respect is that of the Act that is being amended. However, if my hon. friend thinks that the language is at all ambiguous I move to amend clause 3 by striking out the words " keep an " in the seventh line on page 2 of the Bill and replacing them with the words " have his," so that the clause will read:
-who shall hold office during pleasure, reside and have his office at the city of Ottawa, and be paid a salary of five thousand dollars per annum.
Amendment agreed to and clause as amended agreed to.
On the title:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: May I ask the minister a question in regard to clause 2 amending section 8 of the old Act?


Georges Henri Boivin: That clause has been carried and only by unanimous consent can consideration of it be reopened. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. member have leave to revert to clause 2?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was going to ask the minister what changes had been made.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the third line after the the word " or " and before the word " for " there were inserted the words " at the request of the president." There was some question as to the advisability of vesting in the Governor in Council the power of terminating at pleasure the office of the deputy judge appointed under this section, but I do not think it is reposing a very great deal of confidence in the Government to give them that power.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What about the qualifications of the men appointed?
[Mr. Dohertv.l


Charles Joseph Doherty: The deputy must be absolutely the same class of man as the man who is eligible for appointment to the permanent office.	-
Bill as amended reported.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there is no objection I should like to have it read the third time now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It can, of course, be
read the third time now only by unanimous consent.
Bill read the third time and passed.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 12 (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When progress was
last reported upon this Bill, all of the clauses and schedules had been read and considered. Paragraph (k) of clause 2; clauses 29, 32, 37, 44, 45, 63 and 101; the amendmets proposed by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) to clause 37 and by the hon. the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) to clauses 29, 44 and 101, were allowed to stand for further consideration. Clauses 19 and 76, which provide for the expenditure of money, cannot be adopted until the House has concurred in the required resolution. The other clauses have been adopted. Clause 29 is under consideration. Mr. Guthrie has moved to amend clause 29 by adding to subclause 2 the following words:
Provided that no disability imposed by paragraph (b) of subsection four of section eight of "The Naturalization Act," chapter thirty-eight of the statutes of 1919 (first session) shall disentitle a person on that ground alone to the said Certificate.
Mr. Euler has moved in amendment to the amendment to strike out in its entirely subclause 2 of clause 29 of the Bill. The question is on the sub-amendment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When this committee 'rose the other evening I was dealing with the amendment ol the hon. member of South Waterloo (Mr. Euler) striking subolause 2 of section 29 out of the Act. The contention is that all the purpose of a franchise Act of a liberal and proper kind can be served by the enactment of the first paragraph of clause 29 and that the second paragraph is not necessary and is merely making it difficult for a certain class of people who are entitled to vote to

exercise the right of the franchise. The first part of section 29 reads as follows:
Save as in this Act otherwise provided, every person, male or female, shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member, who, not being: an Indian ordinarily resident on an Indian reservation,
(a)	is a British subject by birth or naturalization ; and,
(b)	is of the full age of twenty-one years; and,
(c)	has ordinarily resided in Canada for at least twelve months and in the electoral district wherein such person seeks to vote for at least two months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
The contention is that all that is necessary to provide for the qualification of everyone is to stipulate that he is a Briish subject, is twenity-one years of age, has resided in Canada for twelve months and has resided in the district in, which he seeks to vote for two months. That has been the rule since Confederation. I was saying, the other evening when, we ended the day's debate, that, if that is not the intention of the Government and if they are determined to put this Act through, it should be made as easy as possible for applicants who must apply for the certificate provided for under subsection 2 of section 29 to get that certificate. As it is now, there is only one class of officials to whom applicants can -apply, that is judges of the Supreme and 'County Courts. I think that both these classes of judges are entitled to hear applications for naturalization under the present Naturalization Act. The subsection says that applications -shall be heard before the peqple who are authorized to 'hear applications under the Naturalization Act. I would also -point out that women, young men or old men, who may need these certificates, are just -as important and deserving a class -as men who were seeking to get away from -service under the Military .Service Act and that the same facilities for application should be given to these men and women who will seek these certificates that were given to men who were applying for exemption. Under the -law providing for exemption there were thirty courts in the three counties of Cape Breton, Richmond and Victoria. In that large district there is only one judge residing at -Sydney and if this Act goes through any person looking for a certificate and residing in the counties of Richmond, Cape Breton or Victoria must go to that one judge in order to make application. I submit this is an extraordinary measure as some will be .150 miles away fro-m this judge's office in the city of Sydney, and it is practically impossible for people at the
extreme ends of these districts, or for that matter in other parts of the districts, except in iSyndey, to apply for the certificate. I further said to the minister-and I wish to receive -some attention in connection with this matter-that there are not sufficient grounds given for the application. The specific grounds upon which one -applies for this certificate are not set out at all. On page 83 of the Bill itself there are certain classes of questions prescribed in connection with Form K 2, as follows:
Interrogatories to be administered orally, under oath or affirmation, to applicants in person for registration as voters.
The questions that shall be asked of the applicant are made perfectly clear. He will be asked:
1.	What is your surname?
2.	What is your full Christian name or names?
3.	Where is your ordinary place of residence and what is your post office address?
4.	What is your occupation?
5.	Do you now reside in polling division No.
	 (or as the case may be) of the electoral district of	 for which you now
apply to be registered?
6.	Are you of the full age of twenty-one years?
7.	Are you a British subject?
8.	Are you such by birth or by naturalization? State which.
9.	If by naturalization when and how were you naturalized?
10.	Have you a certificate from a judge entitling you to be registered as a voter?
These questions-there are some more- make it perfectly clear to the applicant for registration what- he has to answer, and if any person feels that he cannot answer them he need not go to the trouble of applying. I submit that when a person has to go a long distance, perhaps ISO or 200 miles, -to a judge for the certificate which will be required under subsection 2, he at least should have some conception of the questions that he would be required to answer when he comes before the judge. I presume that an application can be made on behalf of the applicant by a lawyer or some other person who is entitled to appear be fore the court. A lawyer preparing a case under subclause 2 of section 29 has very little intimation of the kind of material in -the shape of evidence that he will be expected to put 'before the judge. If this Bill must pass and this requirement is to be exacted from people before they can vote, the leas-t that can -be done is to give those people some idea of what they will have to answer. Under the Naturalization Act it is well laid down what the applicant has to do, what he has to know, what he must provide for; and if he cannot comply with

those requisites it will be absolutely unnecessary for him to apply.
On another occasion I pointed out the rights of the men and the women who will be disfranchised by section 2 unless they get a certificate. I think it was the minister himself who pointed out that these people never had the right, to vote, and consequently are not suffering any loss; that the granting of the franchise is a privilege that must, in some special way, be conferred upon an individual. I do not think that that argument is as strong as it might appear. Even if it were all right and worthy of its full face value, the Act of 1918 which conferred the right to' vote upon women in Canada explicitly gave them the franchise. I am only dealing with women who were British subjects on the 24th of May, 1918. The Act referred to gave votes to women in express terms; and if they are to be deprived-in an indirect way by the words of subsection 2 of section 29 of the Franchise Act-of the right to vote, we are depriving them of a right which they now hold and can exercise until this Bill goes into force. I need not tell the minister or this committee that the right to vote is a property right. It is regarded not only in this country, but in Great Britain and in other countries of equal civilization, absolutely as a property right, and interference with it is regarded as an interference with a property right. Thus if a man is deprived of his vote by any individual putting obstacles in his way he can go into the courts of the country and sue for damages. That is not anything new, it has been done over and over again, showing conclusively that the exercise of the right to the franchise is tangible absolute property, and ,the taking of it away from a man is taking away his property. I submit, therefore, that if the minister insists upon passing subclause 2 now before the committee, he will be passing a law that takes away from thousands of women in Canada a right which they now possess and which may be called their tangible and absolute property. Now let me deal with the other point, that unless the right to vote is conferred upon a British subject he does not possess it. The old Act says:
An Alien to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted shall, within Canada be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges, and be subject to all obligations to which a natural born British subject is entitled.
I am sure that no person possessing ordinary common sense would for one

moment argue that does not imply the right to vote. Such a person has got to have all political and other rights, powers and privileges of a British subject born on British soil. Will any person say that a British subject, born on British soil, is not entitled to vote if he is otherwise qualified? I submit that he is so entitled and that this was the purpose of the old Naturalization Act, chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes. The present Act, which was passed after the war began, and after we were given every opportunity of fully considering its effects provides as follows:
A person to whom a certificate of Naturalization is granted by the Secretary of State of Canada shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers -and privileges, and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject, and as from the date of his naturalization have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject.
That is the Act we passed in 1919, and that is the law to-day without any amendment or interference of any kind. I submit again that there i-s no question as to what is implied in the statement "entitled to all political and other rights, powers and- privileges;" it means of course that a man has the right to vote. Take the case of a Belgian woman * who before the war came to this country and married a Canadian. Under our law she became a British subject. Such a woman, let us say, has remained in this country, has made the Dominion heT own country, so- to speak. She has 'been standing by us and has continued on the most friendly terms; hut when we come to give the vote we say to that Belgian woman, a British subject and a citizen of this country: You cannot vote'; because of a disturbance in this country, when we. got into a bad humour, we are going to visit the sins and iniquities of another country upon you; and although you have for years been a British subject, although you have given birth to and brought up children in this country, although you have worshipped at the shrines where Canadian men and women worship, although you have fulfilled all the obligations of British citizenship and we have nothing to say against you- nevertheless when you come to the poll on election day we must refuse you the right to British citizenship. We ask hon. gentlemen opposite, why? I do not wish to use any strong language here, but I do not think there is a man living within the four corners of Canada who can give a satisfactory answer as to why a woman of that class should be deprived of the Tight of

exercising the franchise in common with her husband.
I have already pointed out that I would not have so much fault to find with the Government in this connection if they had limited themselves to the disabilities which they have enforced in paragraph (b) of subsection 4, of clause 8 of the Naturalization Act-chapter 38 of the statutes of last year- and deprived aliens from enemy countries of the right to become naturalized for ten years. There would at least be some consistency about such action; they would he meting out the same treatment to those people when it came to naturalization as in the case of the exercise -off the franchise. But we Ihave widened the application of the proposed law altogether and made it apply to everybody who crosses the Atlantic to Canada unless they come from a British country. A German woman who went to the United States some years ago, became an American citizen theTe, and then located in Canada, or a Turkish woman who became naturalized in the United States and then came to this country, would have a right t-o vote; but a refined woman who came from France, or other friendly country in Europe, and passed all the educational tests of the class to which she belongs, would have no such right. Even a coloured woman, as has already been pointed out, or some other woman of no refinement at all, belonging to Mexico or some country of Central America, who marries a man and comes to -Canada, has the right to the franchise. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that we are here 'sowing the seeds of difficulties and differences which the youngest member of this Chamber will not live to see the end of.
Why, Sir, we are teaching foreigners to respect our flag-and that is a proper thing to do; we are teaching foreigners young and old to sing "God save the King"; we are telling them that they are entitled to all the rights and privileges which we possess. On our days of celebration, on the Queen's birthday and Dominion Day, we gather the children together and ask them to salute the flag, to sing "God save the King," to be loyal to our King and country; and the little ones of foreign extraction are glad to join our own children, and their parents are proud to see them participating in those exercises. But when on election day those little foreigners find that the mothers of other children go to the polls to exercise that great right of British subjects-the right to choose their rulers, and they come home full of pride in their adopted country and say, "Mother, everybody is going to vote to-day. In the country
we came from we had very little to do -with anything like this, but here everybody has the right to say who shall govern. Mother, have you been down to vote?" And that poor mother will have to say, "I am not allowed to vote. This flag which we are so proud to salute, this King whose life you are singing that God may prolong so he may, through this Parliament, continue to reign over us-that flag, that King and that Parliament have disfranchised me and I have no right to vote like other British subjects."


Jacques Bureau: Shame !


Mr. LAPGENTE:: Three times shame!


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Let me tell you, Sir, that we are bringing humiliation to the hearts and minds of those youngsters that they will nevetr forget and never forgive, and we are bringing humiliation to the parents that they will never forget and never forgive. And what is it all for? I would like to be able to answer that question, but I cannot.
The policy of this great country should be, as we have been taught often during this session, to make the most of the foreigner in our midst, to confer upon him the right to vote, to exact from him all the duties of a citizen, so that we may have a better and a more united country. Not very long ago the hon. member for Fron-tenae (Mr. Edwards) quite properly initiated a discussion as to what we were doing for the children of our foreigners to put them on the same footing educationally with our own children; and every one was anxious that ways and means should be found to educate not only those children but the parents themselves in the principles of our Government and the ideals of our nation. The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) recently proposed a resolution calling upon all of us to get together and see what we could do for our foreign population, and he said that we were too slow in bringnig them into proper line with our national ideals and principles of government and were not making the most of their talents. Well, we were all willing to fall in line with the hon. member, and also with the hon. member for Frontenac, in doing whatever was possible to advance the interests of these foreigners, and so advance our own. But when, immediately after those fervent speeches, it comes down to the first practical test, we say to these foreigners, "Away with you! We know you not. No privilege is coming to you so long as we can keep it from you.

I submit, Sir, that it is not worth while for the minister and the Government to take those drastic steps for any results that they expect to get therefrom. I hope that their better judgment will prevail, and that the minister in charge of this Bill will withdraw this objectionable clause, so that every British subject in this country may be in a position on election day to exercise his God-given right to say who shall rule over him for the next five years.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to detain the committee at any great length, but I feel that it is my duty to supplement 'the powerful appeal we have just had from the hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie), succeeding, as it does, to many others. I feel it is my duty to emphasize the central anomaly of this clause. I have neither the legal knowledge nor the desire to go into any detail on the matter. But it has been stated again and again that the ministry and their supporters are proposing to pass a clause whereby a negress married to a Mexican shall be able to vote in this British country under the British flag, while by the same clause that right will be denied to numerous women ootming from the countries of Europe, whether those countries are inhabited by our Allies or by those who were recently our enemies. And this is the twentieth year of the twentieth century!
It is an anachronism, it is an injustice, it is an absurdity; -and with all the power of voice and thought I protest against such legislation going on the statute book of a British 'country. It is a disgrace. If I had my way this session would last a good deal longer while every member who feels this in his blood made hlis protest, as we have tried to make it.
I endorse the first remarks which fell from my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) last Thursday, when he said that it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this question. It is important because it goes to the very fundamentals of the differences which have divided parties throughout the British Empire ever since franchise reform was spoken of. It goes to the very root of the matter, and it raises in acute form the difference between reaction or toryism on the one hand and progressive, democratic or liberal views upon the other. For any part, I am proud to he associated with 'those who stand on this matter for the progressive and the broad view as against the reactionary and restricted view. That is the question regarded from the political standpoint as a matter of justice and decency.
Now, one cannot be surprised at an honest Tory like my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie supporting a clause like this, because he has told us whence he derives his information on electoral matters. He says that in matters of franchise and things relating to the constitution he would rather follow Edmund Burke than the humble individual now addressing this committee. But that was a very poor way to put the point. What he should have said was that he would rather follow Edmund Burke than the general opinion, as we had thought it was, of the whole of the electorate of Canada. I thought it was understood that we lived in a democratic country where Edmund Burke's views had long been forgotten. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if my hon. friend has really studied Mr. Burke or whether the particular quotation on which he based himself the other night was given to him by some one. I am not going into this question at length; I do not want to go into it, because I should be very sorry to be-called to order four times by the Chairman, or to be called to order at all. But I think it is perfectly germane to the argument that I am trying to present and perfectly germane to the discussion of this clause to show how it is perfectly natural for a hoary-headed Tory to vote for the narrow and restricted view upon this question, especially when he derives his inspiration from Edmund Burke.
Now, Edmund Burke was one of the most colossal figures that ever sat in the British House of Commons. But after all, he lived one hundred and forty years ago. While other persons referred to in the debate the other night lived a great deal longer time ago and were good instructors on morals, I have never heard that we went to either the New or the Old Testament for instruction on the electoral franchise. I do not know how elections were conducted in Judaea, but we do not go there for our inspiration on the franchise. However, let us see the kind of inspiration we should get by going to Edmund Burke. Mr. Burke made a famous speech upon this very question of the representation of the people in the House of Commons. I do not propose to read the speech, I need not say; but I will read two or three extracts from it. He said:
The reason for the Crown as it is, for the lords as they are, is my reason for the Commons-as they are, the electors as they are.
And what is the fact about the Commons and the electors when Edmund Burk lived?'
TMr. McKenzie.l

There were hardly any electors. The House of Commons was elected on a very narrow and restricted franchise under the dictation of the House of Lords. That is the condition under which Mr. Ed'mund Burke lived, and he argued for a continuance of that condition by saying he would have the Commons and the electors kept as they are, just as he wanted to keep the lords and the Crown as they were. I say that any one who derives his inspiration from that source would naturally vote for any clause restricting the franchise in any way imaginable. So Tories have always been; every successive extension of the suffrage has had to be wrung from them; has had to be beaten out of them. Now, let me give my hon. friend another quotation from his favourite and inspirer. Burke says again:
Now, I ask, what advantage do you And that the places which abound in representation possess over others in which it is more scanty, in security for freedom, in security for justice, or in any one of those means of procuring temporal prosperity and eternal happiness, the ends for which society was formed?
That is a beautiful passage to guide the deliberations of a democratic assembly in what we suppose to be the democratic country of Canada! And yet Edmund Burke is the inspirer of at least some of the thought on the other side of the House. Well, I repeat, it is no wonder that votes from that source will go to restricted franchise. Then, he ended that speech with the famous passage which begins:
I look with filial reverence on the constitution of my country.
The constitution was The King, to whom we are still all loyal; it was the House of Lords, and it was the House of Commons, created under a very narrow, restricted franchise, and unequal distribution, and at the bidding in many cases of the House of Lords. It was the day of rotten boroughs, the classes ruling and the people being told to be thankful that their temporal affairs and their eternal salvation were being looked after by their betters. That is the inspiration of my hon. friend from West Calgary, and it would be the inspiration of any one who had similar Tory proclivities coming down from so long ago.
But I am free to confess that I do not believe there are many Tories who would defend such a speech as that from which I have just quoted as applicable to present-day conditions. They ought to dissociate themselves, therefore, from the support of this clause, because after all, Mr, Chairman, for the last generation of
men in this country there has been no difference, practically speaking, on questions of franchise between the different sides of politics.
But if it he true that not many Tories would derive their inspiration from that source, what am I to say of my Liberal-Unionist friends? Are they going to vote under the inspiration of Edmund Burke? Are they going to vote for giving to a negress a right which they refuse to French women? Are they going to vote for that, and then go back to the broad prairies and the clear air and the broader thoughts of Western Canada and expect their views to be accepted by the electorate? I see mv hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Halladay) in his place. I see my hon. friend from Strathcona (Mr. J. M. Douglas). There are very few Liberal Unionists in the Chamber. I see my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders), and I see my hon. friend from Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey). I cannot count any other Liberal Unionists on that side. But I should like to appeal to these hon. gentlemen, who have been influenced by Liberal traditions and who have Liberal views. I put it to them plainly, and to those who act with them; are they going to vote for a clause which confers electoral rights upon negresses married to Mexicans in this broad, free, democratic country and in this twentieth century, which rights they refuse alike to alien women and to women of our allies coming from Europe? Thlat is the sample question. I repeat that to vote for the clause is to vote for the enactment of an anachronism, an injustice and an absurdity.
There is no need to threaten the Government over the business; it will be very simple to have the clause dropped. We know that from what we have seen happen in the House in recent times. The other day, under the guidance of the minister, my hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie) wasted nearly a day of the time of this House when everybody who has the real interests of Canada at heart is trying to get to the end of the session-wasted it over an amendment. You know what happened to the amendment. At least, I do not think anybody does quite know-it disappeared; it is gone. All that happened was that my hon. friend from Neepawa (Mr. Davis), whom I should like to have had the honour of addressing on this question, rose and said:	Now, you had better drop this
thing-and dropped it was. They say that on the field of battle when men are in the

moment of defeat and panic they sometimes roar before they run. However that may be, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Tweedie) the other day made a brave showing for sixty minutes; then he wandered out of the Chamber with the amendment which he had wasted a day over, in his back-tail pocket. There the amendment disappeared. They laughed best who laughed last in a matter of that kind. All that is necessary for any of my Liberal-Unionist friends who insist here that they should not support this thing, is not to vote against the Government-they will never get the chance of killing the Government in that way if I can trust recent experiences-but to tell the Government to kill the clause, and that will be done. The responsibility is a tremendous one. There is an old saying: "If you scratch a Russian, you will find a Tartar." Well, we have came to the time in this country when the people are asking: If you scratch a Unionist, do you find a Tory? That is a very serious question for my Liberal-Unionist friends to consider. I am very much afraid that this Government, having lost, one by one, their Liberal-Unionist representatives -to my great sorrow, we have a minister introducing this Franchise Act who has in his veins as good Liberal blood as ever flowed in Ontario-are bringing us to the position when the Unionism of the Government and the Liberalism of the Government will need a microscope to discover them and the broad reactionary Toryism of the'aggregation will stand out in bold relief. The country will make no mistake about what it is dealing with; it will say:	This
Government formed upon a fifty-fifty basis has lost the red political blood; it has passed into a state of anaemic and degraded Edmund Burke Toryism, and the country will put it where it belongs.
I should like, if it be not too late, to appeal to the minister and to the other members of the Government. What is going to be gained by insisting upon a piece of legislation such as this? Why not drop the clause? From the party point of view, whom do hon. gentlemen think they are going to gain? I do not care to go behind *the motives of those who support this monstrosity, for monstrosity it is tried by the single principle that I have endeavoured to lay down and emphasize. I found in the 1917 election that it was very doubtful, in many parts of the West at any rate, whether any party advantage was derived from the partial enfranchisement of women, that we had in that election. Men came to me and they said: 'fiDo you mean to tell me it 
is true that Mrs. So-and-So has a vote and *my wife has not?" I had to answer: "Yes, that is so." Then 'I knew what happened. Men who otherwise would have voted for me went straight to the ballot box and voted against me. From the party point of view, the proceeding is a very doubtful one. And the reason is not far to seek. The sense of justice and fairplay is so strongly ingrained in British peoples-I mean people under British institutions-that when an injustice is done, they will mark their reprobation of it by the first instrument that comes their way to handle, and I venture to think that though you debar women under this infamous clause, and those women possibly would vote against you, you will raise such a feeling amongst large numbers of your own supporters, male and female, that they will, by voting in another way, more than make up 9 p.m. for any gain you think you make -if you do think you make gain -by debarring certain women. But it is from the national point of view which has been so well put by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria that I plead with the Government. I was very much pleased with a remark the hon. member made the other day. He said: The war is over; eighteen months have elapsed since the Armistice was signed; it is our sacred duty, a duty to which I would fain believe that every one of us in this chamber is anxious to contribute his quota, to reconstruct this country, not only in its financial affairs, in its industrial life, in its economic life, but in what is far more important than that, by healing the mental wounds of war, by giving our people no grievance, by leaving them no sense of wrong, by establishing conditions under which we shall know that we are in a democratic country because every one of us has equal rights and democratic privileges. That is the ground upon which I would make my chief appeal to the ministry to drop this clause even at this period.
My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie), in his concluding words, did, far better than I could, that which I rose to my feet with the intention of doing. He pleaded with the Government not 'to give growing children a grievance, to leave no sense of grievance nor injustice, after all the harrowing times of war, in the mincSs oif any of out people. The Government are making a distinction in favour of the women of Mexico and Negresses as 'against women coming from France, Belgium and other European countries. The Government are inflicting an injury upon the fair name of Canada; they

are inflMing a wrong upon certain people; they are creating -a feeling of injustice; they are disgracing the statute book of this realm. I plead with the Government even now to see the error of their way and to drop this most iniquitous proposition. I shall have no hesitation whatever, but very great pleasure and pride, in voting with the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler).


Mr. BURNHAM:: Just foT a few minutes I should like to protest against the extraordinary position taken by my hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark). He would sacrifice, as I understand fit, those people who came under this provision, provided, however, that the subclause shall not apply to any person bom upon the continent of North America. In order that he should carry his point with regard to the others, he rwould sacrifice these people. As a matter of expediency or otherwise, or compliance with the Naturalization Act, we understand that those bringing in this Bill have found it necessary or advisable, for this occasion only, to make this limitation with a proviso, however, which attaches to itself a very great deal of importance and which the liberal-minded gentleman who has just sat down argues against in a most extraordinary way. He would have these people, to whom this franchise is extended, cut out rather .than that those mentioned in the first part of the subclause should not he provided for .as he has seen fit to assert they tehould jbe. (This argument, therefore, of my hon. friend-I say this with all respect-nullifies itself. He has argued for the principle of the extension in the first part of 'the clause and absolutely and completely denied it in (the second. I must confess that I am unable to comprehend such reasoning. It would have been far better not to have ridiculed the Mexican and the Negress, hut, if you like, to have said that the Government were going too fax in extending the franchise to the Mexicans and the Negresses, although I do not .agree with him in that, provided they are intelligent people. But he has seen flit to ridicule their position and to say that the extension oi the franchise to .the Mexicans and Negresses is an absurdity in view of the first part of the clause. These pretty little jibes about scratching a Unionist and finding a Tory, and so forth, are very nice. But we do not have to scratch the farmers; they do that for themselves. I must confess that I think such remarks to be far from conducive to sane 141
and reasonable discussion of the subject. It is not very dignified to quote the great Burke in one breath and try to throw contempt and ridicule upon this side of the House in the- next. We know that Burke was a reactionary. We know of course that he stood for everything that was against the French revolution and seemed to be carried away by the Austrian princess who occupied the French throne at the time. But Burke nevertheless was an honourable . man; he was a great man. Like others, he made his mistakes, and it is for us to sift the grain from the chaff and to appreciate and profit by whatever was right in that which he proclaimed. The great lesson of Burke to posterity, as I understand it, i3 the fact that his eminently philosophical mind clarified the situation and was -above all things absolutely honest. He took some most extraordinary positions no doubt and was assailed by such men as Fox. But what he wrote regarding the sublime and beautiful will always appeal to us for the extraordinary and noble character of his mind and the loftiness of his conception, But I am well satisfied that the ministry, and the minister who is in charge of t-he Bill and who, as an hon. gentleman has well said, is a man of lofty and noble characteristics, have no personal motives in permitting the provision which this clause contains. And when the clause has served its purpose I am sure it will be repealed or amended.


Jacques Bureau: After the next election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Hampden Burnham: Honi soit qui mal y
pense-evil be to him who evil thinks. If I made a statement that hon. gentlemen opposite construe as in the nature of an admission, I confess that I did so in the innocence of my mind. The unworthy meaning which hon. gentlemen opposite take pleasure in attaching to that statement certainly did not occur to me nor, I believe, to any other hon. member on this side.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


John Hampden Burnham: Some people judge
others according to their own standards.


Jacques Bureau: To the pure all things
are pure.


John Hampden Burnham: Hon. gentlemen opposite ascribe to us motives the imputation of which, were they circumstanced as we are, they would no doubt resent. Let not hon. gentlemen judge others by themselves unless their standards are a little higher than those of the persons whom they

subject. We have exactly the same considerations to take account of here to-day; the onlj difference is that we are dealing not witli breign policy hut with our policy at home We have even an identical case as respects every naturalized Jew affected by this legislation, the only possible difference is that instead of the rights of one Portuguese Jew as a British subject being effected - the rights of m'any naturalized jJewis ail'd thousands of other British subjects in this country are being invaded by the legislation which the [Government itself is seeking to force through. It cannot be d'enied that this section of the Bill subjects to a measure of indignity and thereby may deprive thousands of women, and many men of alien or foreign origin but who are British subjects, of rights which are given to others on the ground of their British citizenship. The section even takes away from thousands rights which have been already given to them ,ais British subjects by the Government. Let the committee understand that clearly. This Parliament, through its naturalization law, gives to these men and women, who to all intents and purposes are being disfranchised by subsection 2, the. right to be considered as British subjects. Parliament went farther than that, it passed an Act only two years ago giving every British subject, male or female, the right to the franchise. Why then does the Government at the present time deny to large numbers of persons a right which they have already given and which they profess to be willing to continue. I contend there is something here which all must stand up and contend for at the present time who are inter-jested in British justice, in British fair play, and in 1 maintaining in this (Dominion and especially throughout the British Empire principles of justice and all that we should wish to imply when we use the term "British .subject." I (make this further 'appeal to _ the Government either to give us substantial reasons why we should destroy the traditions which have led us to consider that being a British subject, implies the same treatment for one and all, or to listen to the plea that is now being made on behalf of those British subjects who will suffer indignity as a result of the Government's proposed action.
Let me again, Mr. Chairman, plead with [DOT]the Government, and with the minister, for the sake of their own honour as well as for the sake of justice in this matter, to do what at the outset they promised they

would do, and what they are on record in Hansard as having said would be the guiding principle of this Bill. If the Government fails to do that, then we might just as well understand at the moment that in this Bill, from one end to the other, we may expect evidences of the same kind of manoeuvres and of the same kind of deception-because that is what it is-as we have found in this particular instance. Every member of this House is interested in giving to the people of Canada a franchise in which they will have confidence. This Government has tampered with the franchise in the last five years as no Government under the sun has ever tampered with a franchise, and they have got so into the habit of passing laws interfering with the rights of the people in the matter of their votes that it now seems but a relatively small thing to deny to thousands of people a fundamental right which, in the Government's own words, they profess to be giving to every one.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Chairman, I have heretofore, during the progress of this debate in committee discussed this clause at considerable length and I do not know that I could, at this late date, afford any more information upon the subject than is now in possession of hon. gentlemen. I must say, however, that I think it rather a late hour for my hon. friend from Red Deer, and also my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, to come forward with a display of indignation, which I am satisfied is but a mockery of their real feelings, in an attempt to show that the Government, in the clause now under discussion, has in any way endeavoured to deceive either the House or the public in regard to the proposals contained in this Bill. Personally I do not think I ever heard my hon. friend from Red Deer labour over a question as hard as he laboured to-night. He certainly spoke under great excitement and with, great force; but the indignation which he was able to command in regard to what he called the quadroon vote and the Mexican vote, that was going to come into this country from the United States on more favourable terms than should be applied to the women of other countries was, in my judg* ment, the height of absurdity. My hon. friend from Red Deer knows, or should know-because he has lived long enough in Canada to know,-that this country is not favoured with any emigration of the negro population of the South, nor yet of the state of Mexico farther to the South-we have practically no residents of that part

of the globe in this country. It is true that in former days we had a considerable southern population who came into Canada to escape slavery and to choose freedom. But that population has been decreasing year by year in every riding in Canada where it existed, and within measurable distance, in all likelihood we shall have none of it, .climatic conditions being the chief reason for this; and there is no Mexican population in Canada. So that when my hon. friend says that one reason why he will oppose this clause is because we are going to permit the quadroon and the Mexican woman to come here on better conditions than women from Europe, the matter to my mind resolves into an absolute absurdity quite unworthy of my hon. friend.
Now, with regard to the statement of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Why, my hon. friend would have the House believe that in something I said on behalf of the Government I misled the House. My hon. friend knew every line in t'he Bill before it was introduced into this House at all. I especially requested a conference with him, and that conference was held several days before the Bill was introduced. That very question in section 29 was discussed between us, and I tell the House my hon. friend took no exception to the clause. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, on the day upon which the Bill obtained its first reading-the first day upon which the Bill came from the printer-I myself gave him a copy of the measure. Many days elapsed before the second reading of the measure; from time to time that step was put off at the request of my hon. friend in order that he and his friends might have a chance of studying the Bill. He knew every line and every clause of it, and so far as my knowledge goes he has taken no exception to it until this late date.
Now, how about the attitude of the House in regard to this matter? This very Parliament, elected in 1917, has on two occasions affirmed the principle and affirmed it unanimously, what does my hon. friend from Red Deer think of that statement? He was a member of the House in 1918, and I say he affirmed that principle-at all events he did not divide the House or vote or speak against it. He was a member of the House in- 1919 when the By-Elections Act was passed which contained that very same clause. I say again that he affirmed the measure because he did not vote against or speak against it on either occasion, and that the Bill received
the unanimous approval of the House. Therefore, I repeat, the same clause was unanimously affirmed twice, once in 1918, and once in 1919-although I may say that in 1918 that special clause-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: -as to the women born in North America was not included, but was subsequently included. Hon. members opposite know why. Ask my hon. friend from' North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) or my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). At their request the clause was inserted. I think it is a fair and reasonable clause; I think it is a good clause and that it ought to be put there. But at all events we affirmed the principle in 1918 unanimously; we affirmed it in 1919 unanimously. It comes up in the House again, and after weeks of discussion and knowing full well the entire meaning and import of the section, my hon. friend waits until this late date before he utters a word in protest against it.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: Does the minister
mean to say that there was no protest made against that clause in 1919?


Hugh Guthrie: Acting Solicitor General himself may say that we are putting on mock indignation, but he does not seem to travel very easily when he tries to answer the arguments which are put forward why this clause should be struck out. He tells my leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he should not complain. He says:	I had an interview
with you before the Bill was brought down; I mentioned this clause 29; why did you not object? Why, Mr. Chairman, how could you expect the leader of the Opposition to discuss a measure which he had not had time to read or to analyse, when the minister himself confesses, with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), that if the words as printed in the Bill conveyed the meaning attributed to them by my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), that had not been the intention of the Government and they would have to be changed? I want to quote my hon. friend's words to show what was the position of the Government when this Bill was being discussed, because with all the strength of the opinion of officers of the House behind them and all the legal talent that they could muster on the other side, evidently the Bill as brought down did not convey exactly what the Government had in mind. On May 5, my hon. friend from North Waterloo' having pointed out that this clause was not a fair clause and that it would disfranchise certain people, the Acting Solicitor General as reported on page 2126 of unrevised Hansard, said:
The question raised hy my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) is not without some complexity. Under the Bill as originally introduced-clause 29, subclause 2-the intention of the Government in framing the clause was hardly expressed by the language used, as was pointed out on the second reading of the Bill hy the Minister of the Interior.
Now, it does not behoove the Acting Solicitor General to reproach my leader with not having jumped at the meaning of the clause when the Government itself could not express its view .in the legislation which they were submitting. The proof of the pudding is in the eating; the Acting Solicitor General has since brought down an amendment with a view to correcting the clause. He went on to say:
The effect of the clause as originally drawn, and now printed in the Bill, would be to disqualify a certain number of people in this country who had heretofore become British subjects by operation of law. The people who would have been thus disqualified, were the section allowed to remain in its present condition, were the wives and children of those who had come to

this country from foreign countries and obtained naturalization in Canada during their minority. As the committee is well aware, the wife of an alien who becomes naturalized in this country, under our law, becomes a British subject. The wife did not have to appear and obtain the certificate of naturalization-she became a British subject by operation of law by the fact of her marriage. Under the old common law idea she merged her existence, her identity became merged in her husband, and by operation of law she became a British subject. So it was also with the children who were minors at the time the parent became a British subject. Not so with the children who had come to the age of twenty-one years. They retained their original citizenship until they should themselves apply for naturalization in this country. My hon. friend from North Waterloo was, I think, the first to point out, during the debate on the second reading of this Bill, that the clause as drawn, had the effect of depriving a certain number of British subjects of the right to the franchise. The Minister of the Interior very promptly informed the House that such was not Intended-that if that were the interpretation of the language of the section it did not convey the intention of the Government-and he promised the House that when the Bill came up again an amendment would he introduced to give effect to the intention of the Government, which was to maintain the right of those persons who had become naturalized by operation of law to all their rights, including the right of the franchise.
That is plain English; it could not be plainer. Yet the Acting Solicitor General now reproaches my leader because he did not, before the Bill was submitted to the House, find out that this clause disfranchised a certain number of persons. He says further:
Now the amendment which I have just had the honour of moving is intended to cure that defect in the section as It is printed in the present Bill, and I would ask the committee to examine the language of that amendment. In my humble opinion the language of the amendment does cure the defect; but if there be any doubt on that point I have no hesitation in saying the Government has no desire to create a doubt on the subject, and we will employ any language that may be necessary to make the matter plain and free from doubt.
What do we ask, Sir? We ask that this subsection be struck out. The Acting Solicitor General answers by saying that there are hardly any negroes in this country. Well, that is not the point; it is the principle that counts. Let me give an example. Suppose an ignorant negro woman comes from the South. She is the wife of a man who is a British subject. A refined woman, highly educated, comes to Canada from France or Belgium. She speaks the language of the country. Sihe employs this negiro woman as a servant. People of high standing in the community entrust to this French woman the training and instruction

of their children. Election day comes, and this French woman, trained in literature, well versed in sciences, her husband a British subject, is deprived of her right to vote because she-was born in France; and the negro wench who scrubs her floors goes down to the poll and has a voice in saying what shall be the fate of this country. Is there any sense in that? I say, no.
When people who come to this country want to analyse what rights they are going to get, they are not going to take the census to find out how many women of any given national origin there are in this country; but they are going to take the law and proceed by comparison, and they will find out the injustice-yes, I say further, the iniquity-of this legislation on the continent of North America. Hon. gentlemen opposite jeer at the fact that my friends bring up the case of the Mexicans. These people, however few or many come here, do not speak the language of the country, while the French and the Belgians do; but the former can go to the poll and vote, while these women of higher education, more refinement, speaking the language of this country, are going to be deprived of the right to vote. What answer do we receive? " Pretended indignation." "Mockery." I do not think that is fair. If the Government are sincere when they call upon us to discuss this question, or if they are sincere when they say they find any good purpose in inserting this provision, let them give us reasons, not words, not opinions. This clause must have something behind it. The answer is: There are very few of these people. Well, if few, why disfranchise them? If there are a large number of them, then you are committing an injustice on those people and you ought not to disfranchise them. My opinion-I expressed it before- is this: I think there are a great number of these women who ought to have the right to vote. But the Government fear less the judgment of a Nigger or a Mexican than they fear the judgment of educated, refined and cultured women. The feelings of those women, who come from France, Belgium or any other of the Allied countries, are such that any acts of autocracy as are being committed daily they would fear more than the other women would. This is an additional method of endeavouring to make votes as the cost of an injustice. My hon. friends opposite claim that they want to give a fair franchise; but if we make any suggestion or point out anything that we think unfair, we are jeered and laughed at.
The only reason I can think of for the way in which they dismiss our arguments and our appeals to cut out this clause is that they fear that some votes may go against them. My hon. friends might just as well come out boldly and in a manly way. Why do you not disfranchise every man and every woman in this country who will not vote for the Union Government-or what used to be a Union Government? Then, possibly we would not have to scratch in order to find out what you want? You dare not do this openly; but you want, by small cuts here and there to try to disfranchise as many open-minded, patriotic people as you dare, in order to gain a political advantage; you are depriving these people of the most sacred right vested in a subject, namely, the right to vote.
Some of my friends argue that this is a privilege. It is not a privilege; it is a right. When I come here and acquire British citizenship, the only way in which I can exercise my right as a citizen is by going to the polls and saying in what way my country shall be run. I want to have a vote and a voice in the legislation of this country and to be able to say who shall be my representative, who shall voice my
10	p.m. views in the Parliament of Canada. The time when the franchise is being exercised is the only time in a man's existence when every man is equal before the law; that is the only time when the poor man can walk up to the poll alongside of the millionaire and say: " For once you have not the best of me; my vote is the same value as yours." Now you are going to deprive these people of the most sacred right they have. You say: That is a privilege we give them. I say: It is a right to which they are entitled, and it is a crime to deprive them of that right.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Mm.   MBWTHUL@: 
Mm.   BSOWTEIUL@: 
Mk.   OHHUL@: : Is iff poKMiffi?


Mk.   BBSWBEBJL@: 
Mk.   CSBBMMI@: them. The second section of the Ontario Election Act provides the conditions upon which a woman shall be deemed a. British subject and entitled to vote. Subsection (c) of .section 2 reads:
If she has become a British subject by marriage, or by the naturalization as a British subject of her parent while she was a minor, and in either case has done nothing to forfeit or lose her status as a British subject, and has obtained a certificate (Form 13) under signature of a judge of the Supreme Court, or of a county or district court under the seal of the court, certifying that she has personally appeared and has satisfied him that she is of the full age of twenty-one years, has resided in Canada a sufficient length of time, and is possessed of all requirements as would be neoes-sary to entitle her, if unmarried, to become naturalized as a British subject, and that she has taken the oath of allegianoe to His Majesty, and no woman shall he entitled to be entered on the list of voters or to vote unless so qualified.


Mr. ROSS:: What sedtion is that?


Mr. ROWELL:: Subsection (2) of section (2) of the new Ontario Act introduced into the House.


Duncan Campbell Ross: What is the number of the Bill?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am in error as to the Bill. It was brought to me as the Ontario Adt of 1920, but it is the Act of 1919. However this provision is in the new Bill.


Duncan Campbell Ross: I cannot find it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I had a copy of the new Bill.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: The hon. member is not quoting from the new Bill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This was brought to me *and I was under the impression that it was the Bill of 1920, hut I find that it is the Bill of 1919. I did have a copy of the new Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I asked for a copy of the Bill of 1920 to be sent to me.


Frank S. Cahill: Where is it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This provision is in the Bill of 1920.	,


Duncan Campbell Ross: I cannot find it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I was under the impression, when this Bill was handed to me, that it was the Bill of 1920. A request was sent to the Library for it. But it is in the Ontario law and was in the Act as introduced in the House in 1920. It was in the copy {Mr. Rowell.]
of the Bill as received by me from the Attorney General's office of Ontario.


Duncan Campbell Ross: It was not section 2 in the Bill of 1920.


Mrv ROWELL:: It was in the copy sent to me. If it is not in the Bill the hon. member now has the Bill has been amended. 1 I will be glad if my hon. friend will send the Bill across to me so that I may have an opportunity of looking at it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Again I ask my hon.
friend if he will let me look over his copy of the Bill of 1920?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Why did you say you had it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because I had it and I loaned it to an hon. member of this House. I understood that it was the 1920 Bill that was handed to me to-night.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You are going from had to worse.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well, I will produce a copy of the Bill which had it in, but I believe if my hon. friend (Mr. D. C. Ross) would send it across I could still find it, although it may have been changed. I cannot force my hon. friend to send it over, but, certainly, if I had a copy of a Bill, I would pass it over to an hon. gentleman and give him an opportunity of seeing it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Was the Bill of which the hon. member Tead the draft introduced by the Hearst Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The 1919 Bill was introduced by the Hearst Government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was passed in 1919, and therefore it must have been introduced by the Hearst Government. If my hon. friend (Mr. D. C. Ross) will pass over the Bill-


Jacques Bureau: I thought you were supporting the Drury Government.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member for
West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) has the Drury Government Bill, so he says.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How do you know?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend said he had it.


Duncan Campbell Ross: My hon. friend (Mr. Rowell) said he was quoting from it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Does my hon. friend say that there is no such clause in the Bill?


Duncan Campbell Ross: Would my hon. friend say hvhat the clause was? If he will read the clause-


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I would like bo ask you, Sir, if an hon. member is in order in discussing a Bill of the Drury Government in relation to a clause before the Federal House. If that is in order, I would like to move that iwe adjourn until the Government get reasonably posted on the question before the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried, carried.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I just want to answer my hon. friend's question.


Georges Henri Boivin: A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). I would certainly agree with the hon. member that the House of Commons would not be in order in discussing a Bill introduced into the Ontario Legislature by any Government, but I think it is in order for the hon. minister (Mr. Rowell) to refer to one of these Bills by way of comparison.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In answer to my hon. friend, the clause which I understood was in the Bill was one which provided that a woman who was naturalized by operation of law was required to apply for and obtain a certificate that she possessed the qualifications necessary for naturalization before she became entitled to vote.


Duncan Campbell Ross: That is not what my hon. friend said at all. My hon. friend quoted a section of the Bill, which he said'was section 2, and which he also said was contained in the Drury Bill of 1920. The Drury Bill of 1920 does not contain any ouch section as section 2, eo that my hon. friend is absolutely wrong in quoting that- as section 2 of the Drury Bill?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Will my hon. friend tell me if there is such a clause in the Drury Bill?	[DOT]


Duncan Campbell Ross: As what?
Mr. ROWE'LL:	Which requires that a
woman, naturalized by operation of law, must apply for and obtain a certificate to show that she is possessed of the qualifications necessary for naturalization before she becomes entitled to vote.


Duncan Campbell Ross: I cannot say it is in this Bill at all. It may be there-I want to be fair to this discussion. My hon. friend quoted
a section which he said was a section of the Drury Bill but which was not a section of the Drury Bill. I do not deny that a section in these terms is there.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Read the Bill.


Duncan Campbell Ross: There are sections
within the Bill referring to former sections and former Acts and I do not know positively if they contain the restrictions which .my hon. friend says they do, but I know certainly that the sections which he calls the sections of the Bill of 1920 are not the sections of the Drury Act of 1920.


Mr. ORERAR:: I would like to ask the
President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) a question. He has referred to the Franchise Act that the Drury Government has introduced into the Ontario Legislature. Can he tell the committee if that Act contains a clause of the discriminatory character of this subsection 2 of section 29?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am very glad to answer my hon. friend's question, It does not contain the provision relating to North American women, and the reason why that clause was put in, as my hon: friend will know, was to meet the case of the wives of American settlers in Western Canada, whereby women from the United States brought up under similar institutions, many of them having exercised the franchise and being accustomed to vote, and who are naturalized by operation of law, are not required to obtain a certificate. It was put in to meet the condition of the wives of American settlers in Western Canada. I am sure my hon. friend would not like to strike it out upon that ground.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to take exception to the rather sarcastic way in which the Acting Solicitor General treated the committee this evening as regards declarations made by members in the debates which took place during the two sessions on this question while the franchise was discussed. My hon. friend said that it was an absurdity to discuss this question as we are discussing it this evening when as a matter of fact it was never challenged by a vote in the House. Now it has been fairly established, much to the discomfiture of my hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General, that the provision was challenged upon two occasions. On the first occasion a vote, not a division, was taken in the House.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a very nice
distinction there.



OTMMOTB

[Stage Direction]
Me. ElB3SnnEniX:: ffitai tflte ffliMl nffacfitogt aff tflte Mil a afinwraism was totem anafl nffiraaititafl to tflte ijaDumnffiBlte aff tflte fffftmnw ffimtt any tom, iuiemril ((3SDxn. fltotflhnii®)) wtaatt a, IHttBl® flmntftoir.. 5fe saM tflhatt tflte anffianter far (©tote® Iffitot ((Mir..	stngpgaijrttfflifl Kite jprriimEiiipJffi aff
tflbiis atomse fa fammar fafflaatas. Msm fit ik wsiy «iny to tote atp HBamsBiiiill anmdl to afbaiw ifibatt amatt. off tflte anamtais aff flffik Majesty's Ilsyaill ffliHjateitiism igHatoktail atpnmitrit tfflnstt way jpifariigaDffi am ttw® tfliifffaBHmtt flaasaafflams, anxfl imtoMly any tom.. tMaixfi fin (©ufat® fl&Btrt ami my Item.. ffniimmifl fltasim J&hII ffiteHr.. My tom. ffinianfl ffmnni (®tel*BE fl&B-tt Ibais tafatej® Item mrawi-atantl wiitflh MansriM ami tfllnik aptBEttiimB wibffimiewmr St Haas taan (Sritetefl to tflte BBgdikbb, anDcfi. tfflnik ik immtf, Ms ffintat.
Bmtt to aaKflar to te ijnkt to thiinm Hett an® ^taito Ms ffissseaft wmmite. ffiiy nffiferaam® to 'Wmfaim® 5>
aff ffiaaifiarafl fl$fl®„ pyie 8(12(1, jilt wiiM te tfflusott any torn.. ffafandl ffaam (©naStae Jfarit fear ffimam satflDgHfflittfag: ttMs jjnfariignl]® jiliinmfl Ibiinn-tollff to affigaraittiism. to iitt. IB® sadii::
I wiffh sate#) tl® mfiifiinis® tflfamtt mamt aff tfite 2TO1 wfttadia ftliiBanunixmt&ff mjgmiiiiflt (oattruisii mmttmimlliiamfi EEMitiffh v.'tinwn. Bit iff ta 'tl:K(ii;inKiuu*:itai mftffliiimttsiy snuttoaras' to) tflte antHinany ftmw;.
I ffiirJl am tfflo® ®Bane page ® gauntest By my Bam. tMsiinfl ((Mir.. MielBaitoe)) wlb® ails am my I wall (puff® Ms wwmfe:
Witflh tflte*® atasmattiiiniff, atnfl wiMh tflte (0ff-tfiinat runflarfitimnimg: tflitatt w® am tfilite ffife off tflte fflfamsE sane aatt ammmiitliime cnmstalTOe* to) may flBunaotte ttttiatt nnay Ite iimoltaffifi iin ffilia ffllH, an-ffiawnuiiia® lany attmaigE iin tfihe ass«tem aff ffiKuntriite wiBiifli was iin -aagam iin ©BinaBa fflianm fflte ffifflttijy (Uiy® aff	itawua to) 2)8i55. arnfl ffiimm
2:68*8 to) HffllVt, \)illi(iii w® Bjaitei® mffinnite tfli® siiro-ncUeeat, ffaiinest, aaiB tffhE ®)«iaient aaartiktte anjpnr-ttainiity ton- tflte atanjte aff tfllte aHUHttay to)
(flteir aqjiiiitan fliitssily mtt tflte unite. H Bibsto bib aii>-tefffliffB to aieitteiaie; to) tflte	ntentifingr aff tfflcte
Milll. 2 (to mat ttiterik tfltei® wlill Ite may askiiftimu mpnn iff. Huff iff iff to Ite dttffliinitfly amasifftoniil tfltett to® am tflliff ffiite aff tflte BSniHffi BrdHl amnstdte^ aOb-iKtiiiltitiy ffiifflte to rfteiill wiiflh isny ASnarndMite mffiKam® tfllratt imttst- Ite iirttmnftUDBB tad: ;aratflter	off
ffffnlliBaiffiitt.
Me. fflbtaiHmiHia),. Ifflaai® x* nmomE tUtam tfllfe. ffitai tfM* wEay jpriimriigjife aff -fflloffi mllffiaa wwimiaiii imamrytog ttt Skiittiaii saoHjitiaEtt. jamil Ibstog: ob-ttiiillM to tflhffi fcamdifeE,, my Dnam. iMkamdl ((Mir.. ©rnffisro®)) tea* ffflnnmiiitilmfl HnKnamrilff -w®iy (dteBnfly. ®9Miin® (Ute .wsnkm ®ff KjffiB,, am tab®
AmmiiSmiaintt tfibe IDtemaiinniitsm ffliHEtdianHc' Jtot dfi*ftatl®fl am .Tarn® .'SKffla [KSiUiii. sb® ntqpsufedl soft fftutae 4tSBB„ any tarn, fensma was Ibtocg; ttefom to tost By any ®n«B Maui ffimam ffiarf;, ®mfi lei® ik tfite Mffli® (ffitalla^affi ®ss-afteaa®si tsawiffi tfite flhmir lteJtawssoa tfltess Itarnffioauaftte tatoflkauHii. T«m wiO! ste,, Me. CteiimiiiBflB., fifiasett ©5msijsttaD«y ik toitoi a jjswril-wlten US®)® ik aBrnffitomuay::
ito. E. lamiiitatit:: 2tt tote talbsa^y liraan
®it tfltett to asanBifffi tflte fcaouto^ sa wamam imintt
pBrc. Oattei®.]]
Ite amEmmBljy omflmiailiffBff, mnil mutt only toe m Hffriittiffii saiigtodt liy namsom aff tflte flamtt tfltett ^te iff tflte wiiflff aff ai arnttanmUtoBafl tnitii^m.
Ma:. (Sttntttome:: tonfiastr tttoff iff iff omfft ateair ifiimtt tflte wiilfle aff ai BBriiflffh .-milii.utt. witeiffitaar ffte team® ittam. atheiiil Ite tflfflffimnG to ft® ta HftTiitiaft) jfffft, tanfl tfltett tfite wiff® aff mm mftian atoallfl ft® mm mliten. TDte dfeoilaimttiiim iff ajiiitee giffiim. Ettam iff m awnmam iff 'C'iriiadtan.aft® iff mm mliimn iff -ffte iff tflte wifi® aff mm mftsan.
iSffir. E. Eairaiimttffi:: jSiniainflia® to nry Bum. ffiiiifemcS ttft® wiiffie aff ta mmttuiimliHCBii IBiiitiffii miiijinrtt ^imlll] ft® tsrtfiifftefl to wstl® mm w^ll m* Bter ftutfftemtft omfter muy flamanftiiiHe flasw?
TEtett ik jpaittttiiai^g tffliffi qpeMttMm tcffiuy )jiteik%:. llntfiBiffiiig))::
3Sfe. (fflalflinii®:: TDtene iff mm citaiitt mftaiiit ttftiBtt.
Ssime Item. MltlMTlSIlHlftS [DOT] ffl®Bjr., lteetBir..
Mr. ©anmEKBffi:: J&mB tltott win* tarn taittaitBE sttmteaiffliitt. <rif tfites law as* iitt staaxfl am tfibe «0®y
tflbmtt stottmniminit, w®s HBSBtfe.
Me. MEMDiElliJX:: W® tra® tSikmmsini® tfflo® ®Ban® priinna%illE.
Me.. ©(DU'MIKinE:: I w®* tadteaB ttfin® Ikw ®f iitt. staaiB,, aiaril I tan®w®ifflil tflln® tjaiMttfflm..
Me. EAlP8M®r!nE:: I atnotet. ssy to my flam.. ffiriieaiai tfitoit was to HSD29-
Me. 1I..E'M ll [Lit 1&.:: [IHaHini, lb®an.
Me. UMWMSnnE:: -am® 5®sbe	ffla® Jatsw
«iff B3BS. ®t* tfibsett xfifesna osy tom.. ffirton-B says iitt was tarn tamanmaife stotteamHutt. «ff tflte forar as iitt was te ®iw®s away ttte wftnfl® «sbs®.
AmmjxBmiffiaBtt to tffln® aanaiiiteffaBit aff Me. llnllffiir ai^Btiiiw®i:: ysasi, ®;; may^, «!5t.
ffiii tfflb® aanfflmtoaHiDtt ((Mir., ffiwtfflnaii®))::
Mir iGim im.iEIHE:: Mir fObtaiiirmtam,, I to-fcraimfl tfltos	anoffl jparttiiamiDanily my
tern., toasmefl ftama Bfimitllla W<atWk® ((Me. ItellHr)),, to sastt att nffirf; tanty ttenHstt wMaila te mr GrtfibrnnE rni^blt Ibaw® to iiH^gamfil to tffln® bm csff tflte fflHrttiffiisBto ttfinait I was wifMkg to tafil tflte flfflffiginta^ sagg^tel By Me. Mnteay, Itofflar-toaiffiitany aff ffltafe. I titeiffiffniia, ga®-HMffffi tflte iMflbDwikg
mtett tflte ffiinini mat aatt iin alffame ft® maneaniB-®B fty iioffartiiiig' mffltear tflte wmnfi "taattnKaftBSBdiimt" iin Hiiffi ttomifiy-aiigiiitt;. *ff HHWe ttw^Ia®, tfite MltaKt-::nr. mamte:: "tar ffinr may (fflffnftiilfiy amndmimsfi iin "TDte ^Sattiurolfizatfitvin 24tflt.'"
lEfte CMMlEMiftM::	TTte auaanfaiHiitfl,
aUmsa^r BseShj® tflte (BEaBamittite wiffl Ibawe to Bm	aff B«5s*® tffiiik bdew aanmoaflaiasintt
®am Ite ]piit5gMaRfl.^SfflnaIIIl tffln® aanHantooffiaitt
(Eanay?
AamaiitoaBit a®iu®fl to.
Mir.. ©ffCTIfflEinE:: I aimw mma® tfte aamaiii-miaiitt I Item® jjmstt nsatS..
ittmrnnTSnnimintt, sBgflnsffidfl to.

[Stage Direction]
Sfe. BfflSUME:: 1 desirne tflbatt tffln® aansnte-unantt dba® mutt (Earn®,, Mr.. (DtanffinoMB,, te-cnaraas I Breara® amotflbaar amDHndanHEtt to arnro® ^ ana gnin*m&inffrntt to tflte Arttiiig; SJriixHifaar (fitenfiraltk.
TDte OBLMMffiSJ:: BOte amBrndanantts Bmera® saDuBsady liman sgni to. TDte amositeinLBantt ®ff tflte Item, tmronftmr far ILsaariktoii ((Mm. Bfar-dte)) wiilll maw tte iim andar..
Mir. BEffiEMJ:: TDte toau. sanffiamarn'k ((Mir. ©mtflbnitek)) airuumikmanti Ita® nastt liman jptntt.
Hite (nffltiUHEMM:: 3D± Ite® ltesn ifiadiamafl aaammfflil.
Mir. MEMEMIf:: Mir.. (QbuiimiifHiB., tflte ammi®-ttfas ®S tflbik fflaairas nmstt ft® waiy flaad„ iim-Jtaafl;; teseuKffi I anm note date y®tt, ®M mb I meay lte, ante I diid mte H®air tflte nguaEkfan jnrtt.
r]Cte OTLMDKMASi:: I amtet jpriiatt mult to tflte manmmiitflaaffi felt aDfera^h tfflose mnnand-amartte Basra® Bogan sgjifflBil to tflte dteuffi nttteH lte® note Ib®an (eaanjkd.. Amy anDandananli to Kite teijgiiirtan steals®, mr to tflte stem®® as flit auw temmds flm amoanteil fauna ik tparfaEiffly jin onrfer..
Mir.. ffAHSBMHE:: Mir.. (OhaiinnrBm,, fflamttiiminiimfE tflte ifi'mnitertni n^amfiia® aftnaro 3®, I mam ®fifl flantt n®f flfltttflte to wtoatt I amiffl tflte atflbar migflblt ms^amffiincgt my flttea ait wito dbaraDd ante wflo® kteoM matt ante, amd I <fl* matt 5®iqpBS£ to w®any tflte ffianse Bey agpdim ®riia® awfflr fltt. My iitea fls sianffly tflbik, flm dtentt, tfltett flit wiiffl )te tour Boetttar far tfflcflte craromttiiy to dmsgi tflte xvKBff ante tflte wrair saairntt ante gmtt lbadk to mananafl] jjiiBtt a® qjumsiHiy a® tpraaiMlE. lFair tfltelt nmnmnn, ttflrrantfan®, I tfflnimib flit ik matt gsxte Hwgiktuttiinmn tfltelt w® an® ©ndsawOTuteg; to eansaatt tty tflbik dkos. Amd I ®an aannffiwiteitt fartfliffiafl flm tfltait oflainnfan fly tfibass® hessm®. 'ffite atflter miigflntt. jiff 1 ariktoite matt,, wftetflbsr Bn® ®aiid flit mr wtteiflter I nasad flit, tflte BPntei-dantt stf tflte flteiyy (Osmmaiill ((Mir.. BBawdO))- aanafi flfl I sean warning I ;aan wflUKorg to kismfl aaummrttel-flainawpiit to aty anBrni. tfibstt ®m®
<ar tfewe tflUia^ lted affiiifgfflS. flaito tflkrik Mil alhaig tflte IliiaK ®S tflte Waiitinnafllitejflffim Aatt ami tflte irigflntt, to wste tflitet Iteii matt tom flmfenfl-®S to sougffifflE. 1 same fiaffitflter tootflifflai Uy tffiu® ttaacgati^ off tflte Mflmikrtar afi .ITiiktiic* ((Mir.. ]Mten%t)) ManteffiL wft® tflte atfiteir aui^bit gnTT«rttiwiai%r iKtoiittttefl tfltelt a^®sttflsaifii(En® wai® ffliiirg; am maw wfltHa tfflo® HBmin® (Saw®imanantt wflnai^by jjakt sinaSa ® aflaas® se® tflkdk ani^bit B® aomantefi s® a® to gtei iteatk to tflte atifl WfflflaMalliitelflmn Itew,, ;am;fl ajppBnraDtflly iitt w®s tfiteo^Dlt. (be^t fty tfflak ®SKW6omai®nit sax®. Boy tflte Mnms (StewifflrmansBit tHoatt \«® dnaxniffl
ftmrft to tfltett Brnkiitfloant. TUtenaftasB,, toviitflb tfltaffi® ttwB tEsjpjEraim® «fi agnoiiinn iitt wmniffl ^gafflr to an t tfltett sail tfltea® wft® tfflmmlk affloBDutt ttflnik mtntttjmr affiauaMkly,, andl am® matt ttattfla® fltt iim sa jpankiy jadlttflaiDlI	ltawe amn® to
tflte rrmiYrtlukkii tfltett. tflte tteatt tfflDflaffi ffiBaite-rnrmift ctiam (fl® to-dlMy ik to Ikgkkto flm ®natii m miay tfltelt \we amm BobehE tflte wmanxik tfltett Itexwe iin«mn iraroattal iBinfi gptt ItoaJk to wttett was aanir
Tt'iTttuTirnUlr/^t'iltiirfin) TTanw jariiar to tflte FKSHmg afi tffli® flSffl® Arit aaxfl afi tflte Mterltflams Aatt. I saitoiit to tfflok tHiBiwft, as 1 sail IteSm®, wHiy siamBH% tfltett tfltelt ik tflte Bate® tfltett w® s&mriM ^t Itoafc to.
Trite Item. aiHHnlteff far ffitet. A%snna ((Mir. ®c. ffi. ®fl*stam)) wa® wny annA (aktaritefi tflte atflter r*nijgflntt, Bny nHSBfflnm afi tflte faftt tflbatt !te (fflifi matt wamtt TpM®tl® rf aDl mattiiaanaDflttflgsB mtehflag flm to .waannffi tflte iriiiglbtt, to wife. Sim aatea ivteB. Boa® ®wsar ttesn aamttsanijfftBtteS. Biy a® can ttftik kite afi tflte ffisnaaB. TDte Aattiiag; ijtelteittmr (SifflifflisBll iBstetel toat^tt, '"WBry kteuaM waniian fltanm ffimso® wife am® ysan-iaffiter amnisssaDI?" TEBoatt ik Bsteite tflte cgntefiiam am far a® ary aatemflanffiaift ik aHUOBimffiB.. ffitonttily iitt aaranmatte to tfBdk. In MB® w® ti a TPVnnaKfiflnikp; A(tt,-laml w® wan® all
Kdintwlitir; nuiHiioTiimiji te tfltedt ttiimo®;; awcrA-
am® wa® gpitiny a Biititfflffi Bailt ffimtStei' tflbam ]j®nibapB Bob w®aM Boaro® ©nn® Bette connfflflka® ilo^n mwrnnmll.. SO)! W®	tfltett MB®
TPirBmirflnihtp J&attj, wBoisBa tfltett BH) Iffflisim a£E mllten Baintffla mteiBiia® iim tflte Biteniimiiam ktouate wsfe amitil tan ssbbb® Iktte «ssjpin«fl tama tflte tesSamattiiana ®ff g®aa®.
Skw„ iitt ik gwttanit to swaiy Basin, anamiterr tfltett tflteiffi ibms anmny gcfflsifi]® iim tflte tEtiiraiiiaiiiain wJto Boaroffi nmaiftte iten® far ananiy yffiaare wSan,, ®a®m «inffimi^n tfltey ttew® matt Itesssa®
. itew® wsfel,, ttfloay Bmw® tolten intjrnii tfliifinadKwes a® MiiitMla Mflbfltek to msiHitak® tflte ffcaaAdks. tfltey Basra® dsn® fflteirr dnaniffi iim aigiteiillfffiiaTjg iflte aammitiiy,, ttBoay Boaw® ifmte tfflnair tims^, (ante iim «wBiy vm$ Itotflia tfDciffiy ante w® Bmw® amteiJfeiffiifl tfltett tflfct^ Bote mm aiHi*nnHiiitt® ai^bit to (ssasmoke tflte {Efflam-aBaikE. I aan mart, ^siiiig to* nsegsaitt iitt c^ato,, Bantt iiff tflbaie ik on® tflbiia® ttBratt ik anwtt saansdl to tfflo© jfffiqffe ®S tflbik ammattay,, iffi tUbere ik am® (fltniiiinr^ tflbatt ik anastt matai®! to Boon. nnamBafflis,, iitt ik tffl® fastt tflbtatt ®teb kball Ibaw® tflte niijjbtt to ®wmrrik® tflte faamaBnikfi. Bit ik juaEitiiHally Bastug iin Sfc-MamkTLfflnte to sty tflbatt all-tflbonagflii ywn Biiwffi iim ;u ffismmttny,, aUtfibsii^h yam lEwunrik® ttBo® ffluaffittiisms ®ff abtfikatebiiiP

.alltfflmmii^b yam gsy yamir ttaraffis, ante aBtfflasn^b yam an® IWMIffi to ifflo® Haw® ®5 tflte aBmnottoy,,- Haws wflniidb ;an® rmtafe Biy n^puffiSHnttaattnwes .rilimtteil fasnn tin® gumatt anas* <sff tffltojsffigite- y®tt ysm kball nostt Basra® m wsik® iim tflte ®sw-«nmnaaDit <®ff ttBo® samnattny ®ir iim tflte steterttram ®fi ytsmir nsfjis^nDtltBttiiwafi. Bit ik matt am «n-
[Stage Direction]
viable position; it is a position that ought to be done away with, in my humble opinion, just as soon as possible.
Now, I grant this to the Acting Solicitor General so far as the Franchise Act is concerned; in Oirdex that no ultra-loyal members may be heard complaining here or to his constituents that I moved an 'amendment which is going Ito let these people in, that the floodgates are to be opened for their admission, I am content, so far as this amendment is concerned, as are hon. members on this side of the 'House, that the ten-year clause should be lived up to. But T and my colleagues are desirous that those who have 'been here for ten years should at least have the right to go before a judge and obtain a certificate to secure naturalization for the purposes of this Act, so that under that Canadian naturalization they may be granted the right to the franchise.
Therefore, I beg to imove an amendment to clause 29 by adding at the end thereof the following words:
And it is. .provided that no disability imposed by the said paragraph (B) shall prevent any person, possessed of the qualifications which would have entitled such person to naturaliza-' Ron prior to the year 1914, applying to a judge for a certificate that he was so qualified,

which certificate the judge shall grant upon proper proof,-and on production of said certificate the said person shall be deemed a British subject for the purposes of this Act and shall be entitled to be entered on the list of voters and to vote.
Hugh Guthrie: As the discussion has
proceeded on clause 29 I think the committee has been- incidentally entertained with a general discussion of the amendment now moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) in concrete form. I think that the amendment is objectionable; first, because it is really an amendment to the Naturalization Act, or ought to be, rather than an attempt to amend the Franchise Act. What is sought by the amendment now before the committee is a change in our present naturalization law which will permit of a dual system of naturalization in the country, first, in part, the Naturalization Act, which has special requirements enacted by this House in 1919, and, second, a naturalization law limited in its operation to the Dominion of Canada, practically putting back the law so far as the franchise is concerned to the law as we found it in Canada prior to 1914.


Mr. PARDEE:: Are you not, in this Bill, changing the Naturalization Act?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not think we are changing it.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Certainly.


Hugh Guthrie: What we are doing is
recognizing its full force and application.


Joseph Archambault: Not by the
amendment which the minister (Mr. Guthrie) moved.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, for this reason;
the people with whom subsection 2 would deal were British subjects by operation of law, and wrere people who were not affected by the Naturalization Act. But the object of the present amendment is to void the plain enactment which this House made in 1919, and on that ground it is objectionable. If my hon. friend deems that our Naturalization Act is improper or that it should be amended, he should bring forward a Bill to amend the Naturalization Act-and I doubt very much whether after its solemn pronouncement on the question one year ago, the House would feel inclined to amend the Naturalization Act.
Now, the amendment is objectionable in form and would likewise be objectionable in its operation and in its result. I am free to speak for myself on this subject, and I say that my experience of people I know in Ontario of German nationality who have lived in this country thirty, forty dr fifty years has not been such as to lead me to believe that these people are entitled to the franchise, particularly at the present time. I would not be in favour of the proposal on that ground. I state the result of my own personal experience in regard to the matter. I am satisfied that the Imperial Naturalization Act was passed with a ten-year limitation against persons of alien enemy countries and adopted in Canada, Australia and the other dominions only after the fullest consideration and for the express purpose of seeing to it that people of enemy nationality should not, for a period of at least ten years succeeding the war, be treated as other subjects. I do not believe that the amendment moved by my hon. friend meets the situation in Canada.
I grant that there may be many worthy people who have resided in this country for many years and who under normal conditions might be entitled to the franchise or to have exceptions made of their cases. But this also must be remembered; these people have been pretty careless in the past; they have been negligent of their rights. If citizenship is the great boon which we believe it to be-and British citizenship is certainly a great boon-these people have been hopelessly careless in that they did not see to it that they became

British citizens during these thirty, forty or fifty years. 'They have waited a long time. They have enjoyed all the protection given to British subjects upon the assumption that they had become such. If they have waited twenty, thirty or forty years in that condition, I think no great injustice will be done to them if they are allowed to remain ten years longer in order that they may comply with the law which this Parliament and the Parliaments of the other dominions saw fit so recently to pass. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman-and these are broad, general principles I am stating -and for the reasons which I stated on another occasion during the course of the discussion on this Bill, o<n behalf of the Government I ask the committee to reject this amendment.


Mr. EULER:: It had not been my intention to make any remarks on this amendment, but I do so now, in order to take issue with one or two statements made by the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie). But before I do that, I think it would be fair, although the question has been discussed before by myself and others, to review the situation exactly as it exists so that members of the committee may vote with at least a fair measure of information on the question.
There are, as has been stated, in my constituency as well as in many others, a great many people of what may now be known as former enemy alien birth, who have lived in Canada for many years-many more years than the ten years now spoken of in the Naturalization Act-men. who have lived here for twenty, thirty, fifty, sixty and in one case that I know of, seventy years, who are not to-day in a position to prove that they are British subjects and who may perhaps, technically not be British subjects. I want to make this perfectly plain: you are in this particular case not only dealing with people who are not British subjects; you are dealing with some people who aTe British subjects but have no means of proving that they are such. We have men in my riding who were in this country before Confederation and^hc took the oath of allegiance. They came from Germany. They are to-day, in my opinion, British subjects, perhaps even in law, but they have absolutely nothing to show that they are British subjects. They have no naturalization papers, and unfortunately theTe appears to be no record anywhere of the fact that they did take the oath of allegiance.


James Arthurs: Does the taking of the oath of allegiance make a man a British subject?


William Daum Euler: It does not now, but 1
think it did before Confederation.


James Arthurs: Did it ever make a man a British subject?


William Daum Euler: I am not certain, but I believe it did before Confederation.


Jacques Bureau: What makes him a British subject, then?


William Daum Euler: Now, we have those who thought themselves British subjects; we have those who, I believe, are British subjects but who are unable to show that they are such, and we have others who, whether you call it negligence or something else, never did become naturalized. I do not want to dwell on this, but I dto want to say in reply to what the Acting Solicitor General has just said, that his experience has been unfortunate; he does not believe that these people should be allowed to become naturalized until the lapse of another ten years. In that statement my hon. friend is in direct issue with his leader, the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). I have not the words of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) before me, but I can give them in effect. He stated at the Peace Conference, and he stated in this House, that there were a great many people in this country who were bom in enemy alien countries who were worthy of naturalization, and he, together with the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) placed himself on record' at the Peace Conference as declining to support a suggestion made by representatives of other parts of the Empire that people of enemy alien birth should not be allowed naturalization for another ten years after the conclusion of the war. Those were the sentiments of the Prime Minister of Canada, and in order to prove that those were his sentiments, we need simply go to his acts in 1917. I have said this before, but I will say it again, because I think it ought to be said, that it is fair to consider the fact that in the year 1917, when, perhaps, we may say that the war was at its worst phase, the Government of this country passed, under powers given by Parliament, Orders in Council under which it was possible to make Canadian citizens of those people who are now under discussion under the amendment of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Pardee).


James Arthurs: In what way?


William Daum Euler: If the hon. member will
have patience, I will come to that now.. .This was the method that was to be followed: These men could go to a judge in the ordinary way; they could prove to his satisfaction, or not, as the case might be, that they were worthy of being naturalized. In my particular constituency, in the city of Kitchener, some 93 of them went to the judge, were approved as being worthy of naturalization, and then their applications were forwarded to the Secretary of State in order that the process of naturalization might be completed. There certainly was no object in passing those Orders in Council if it was never intended that any use should be made of them. I cannot for the life of me, see why those Orders in Cbuncil were passed before the elections of 1917 if it was not the intention that the powers under those Orders in Gouncil should be exercised. Yet, when the applications of those 93 people were sent to the Secretary of State, for some reason or other, although the machinery was there to make them- Canadian citizens, British subjects, they were not given that naturalization. I say that to prove that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, provision should be made for the naturalization oi such people, and such provision was made which was afterwards nullified by the Act which was passed by the British Government and which was followed by the Naturalization Act of 1919 which was passed with the "ten-year" clause in order to meet the wishes of the British people, but not the wishes of the Prime Minister of Canada.
The Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) said that if those people did not obtain naturalization in the long period oi time during which they were in Canada, they were guilty of negligence, and he assumed from that, that because those people were negligent, they did not deserve to obtain naturalization now. I do not see much force in that argument, for this reason amongst others. The minister will know, because he has some of these people in his riding, that in former years, matters of naturalization were not considered of as much importance as they are now, and it was perfectly natural that such should be the case. Those people had lived there for many years; they had had their names on the voters' lists from year to year; they had served on municipal councils; 'some of them, so far as I know, may have stood for Parliament; I do not know that for certain, but it would not have been

thought out of place if they had done so, because it was felt amongst all classes of people, including those horn in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, that those people were just the same as any other people in the county of Waterloo. They discharged their duties as citizens just the same as anybody else; there was no difference; and to show that such was the case, there was an understanding between the two parties, the Liberal and the Conservative parties, that when election time came, no man was ever to be challenged on the score of his nationality. It was taken for granted that if a man's name was on the voters' list, he was a citizen properly qualified to vote. So the matter went on. Under those conditions, it was surely not to be wondered at, especially when many of those men had taken the oath of allegiance, that they did not know the law so fully as to know that they must complete the operation by obtaining their papers. It was not be wondered at that they did not do anything further when they were enjoying all the rights of citizenship and when nobody was making any objection of any kind. It is those people who are included under the amendment, and it is to those people that we feel naturalization should be given. You are now willing to give men naturalization who calme fronn former alien enemy countries if they live here for another ten years. Why in the name of reason and ordinary common sense should it not be counted to the credit of those men that they have already lived he're ten years, or three or four or even five times ten years? Ilf it is going to be right to give naturalization ten years from now to men who, perhaps, came to this country in 1913 directly from Germany, are you going to make any exception against, the man who has lived here thirty or forty years?
While I do not want to appeal to sentiment at all, it is a fact that amongst those men to whom you now refuse the franchise for another ten years, although they have lived in this country so many years already, were men who had sons in this war. The Acting Solicitor General has made some rather strong statements that T resent; he has practically said that he would trust very few of those men who came here from Germany many years ago. I take issue with him on that, and while this is not altogether pertinent to the discussion, I want to say this on behalf of many of the people whom I consider I represent, although today they are not technically British subjects. We had in the riding of North Water-

loo a very difficult situation which some hon. members may realize. There were men there who, if they did not enlist, were criticised as slackers or' worse than that, and some hon. members who served in the war probably know this to he the case, that if a man who bore a German name went overseas, he was under a certain degree of suspicion until he proved undeniably that he was all right. Those men were, if I may use the expression, in many cases between the devil and the deep sea.
If they did not enlist, they were slackers or worse than that, and if they enlisted they were spies. This Parliament could now take a step that would restore, at least to some extent, a feeling of confidence that has disappeaied in some parts of this country because of unjust suspicion and Acts by previous Parliaments. I am not going to make recriminatiohs with regard to the War-time Elections Act. I have done that before, I think very moderately. That Act: was wrong; it deprived honest British subjects of the franchise; but I want to say this to the Government, that the war is over, and surely you could do
11	p.m. no better service to this country than to try to heal the wounds of war and to unite together into one people all Canadian citizens, no matter whether they come from England, Ireland, Scotland, or even from Germany, as long as they show they are worthy of being Canadian citizens.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is not my intention to undertake to reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Euler). I have only two observations to make. The first is that up to date, neither this Parliament nor, do I believe, any legislative assembly has in a general Franchise Act conferred the franchise upon others than British subjects. This Act deals only with the franchise, and if my hon. friend's amendment is germane to this Act, it would mean in effect that we were conferring the franchise upon those who were not British subjects; that is a . proposal we cannot accept. If the effect of the amendment is to naturalize these men then it must pertain to the Naturalization law, and that is a question which should be dealt with under the Naturalization Act.
I rose to say that I have now a copy of the Drury Bill of 1920 which I did not have before me when I last spoke, and my hon. friend would not accommodate me with a copy.
Air. A1EIGHEN: Who?
142*


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Ross). I had a copy cf the Bill; I received it from the office of the Attorney General of the province; I knew what it contained. I loaned it to an hon. member of the House, and when the discussion came up to-night, I asked ibat the Bill should be returned to me. It turns out that the Bills of 1919 and 1920 are identical so far as this provision is concerned. There was a Bill in 1919, and the hon. member in handing it to me assumed that he was handing me the Bill of 1920.	1
have now a copy of the Bill of 1920, and the particular clause in question is the same as the clause in the Bill of 1919. I must say therefore that' it was at least regrettable that my hon. friend opposite, when he had the right Bill before him, had not the courtesy to send it across the floor.


Hugh Guthrie: He denied that it contained the clause.


Duncan Campbell Ross: No, I did not.


Newton Wesley Rowell: What this House wishes or should wish to get. at is the facts, and if the clause was in the Bill which the hon. member had in his possession the committee was entitled to have that information. The hon. member might very well, therefore, have extended the courtesy of sending his copy across the floor of the House when the copy from which I was quoting proved to be the wrong one. The clause which I quoted appears in the new "Act Respecting Elections and the Preparation of Provincial Voters' Lists," introduced into the Ontario legislature on the 22nd of March, 1920, by Hon. Mr. Drury, the Prime Minister. For the information of the committee I shall read it. It is in section 9 of this Bill, subsection (2), clause (c). It so happens that it was also clause (c) in the other Bill.
II she has become a British subject by marriage or by the naturalization as a British subject of her parent while she was a minor and in either case has done nothing to forfeit or lose her status as a British subject, and has obtained a certificate (form 3) under the signature of a judge of the Supreme Court or of a county or district court, and the seal of the court certifying that she has personally appeared and has satisfied him that she is of the full age of twenty-one years, has resided in Canada a sufficient length of time and possesses all such requirements as would be necessary to entitle her, if unmarried, to become naturalized as a British subject, and that she has taken the oath of allegiance to His Majesty, and no woman shall be entitled to be entered on the list of voters or to vote unless so qualified.


Mr PARDEE:: Would the President of
the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) say that the Naturalization Act of 1919 covers the provision in regard to a woman's voting under that Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Naturalization Act
would, I believe, cover the provisions under this Bill, and unless this Bill is amended it is much more drastic than our Bill in the sense in which my hon. friend is objecting to-it. Now, so as to be technically accurate I may say that the form is Form 3 in the Act of 1919 and Form 13 in the Act of 1920; or rather, it is Form 3 in the Act of 1920.


Duncan Campbell Ross: That is not right either.


An hon. MEMBER:: Be careful.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is Form 3 in the
1920 Act. My hon. friend has the section before him.


Arthur Meighen: He has had it all evening.


Duncan Campbell Ross: I said I had it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I want to draw the attention of the House to a change in the Act as actually adopted in 1919 and the Act as introduced in 1920. As introduced in 1900 it contained these words:
-and that she has personally appeared and satisfied me

making it clear beyond question that before any woman naturalized by operation of law can cast a vote she must personally appear before the judge and satisfy him of her qualifications to become naturalized and to obtain the necessary certificate and take the oath of allegiance.


Duncan Campbell Ross: What is the section?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Subsection (c) requires
that she should personally appear and satisfy the judge. These words are stronger than in the clause of the Act of 1919 as actually adopted. I want to go a step further and point out Form 3, the certificate which the female voter must obtain under the Ontario Act. Form 3 will be found on page 44, and is as follows:



ELECTION LAWS AMENDMENT ACT, 1920.

[Stage Direction]
(Referred to in section 9, subs. 2.)
Form of certificate for women of Foreign Birth.
I,	a Judge of the	Court,
hereby certify that	of the
of	in the county of	not
being a British subject by virtue of her birth in Canada or some other part of the British Empire, or by reason of her marriage to a British subject, has personally appeared before me and has satisfied me that she,-
1.	Is of the full age of twenty-one years;
2.	Has resided in Canada a sufficient length of time ;

3.	Is possessed of all the qualifications necessary to enable her, if unmarried, to become naturalized as a British subject; and
That she has taken the oath of Allegiance to His Majesty.
She must obtain that certificate before she is enabled to vote. Now, my hon. friend would have expedited the business of the House if he had sent the Bill across the floor so that I might have stated the situation precisely, instead of denying, as I understood him to do, that there was such a provision in the Bill. The clause is in the new Bill practically word for word in the form in which I read it from the Bill of 1919, except that it is contained in section 9 of the Bill of 1920 whereas in the Bill of 1919 it was in section 2.
Duncan Campbell Ross: I do not know that my hon. friend has expedited the business of the House very much by this long harangue in regard to the point at issue. I had made [DOT]it clear to the hon. gentleman and to the House as to what was the question at issue, and my hon. friend got up and said that he was quoting from the Drury Bill of 1920. He quoted section 2 of what he said was the Drury Bill of 1920, whereas as a matter of fact he was quoting from the Bill of 1919; and all that I denied was that he was quoting from the 1920 Bill. That was the whole of my denial, and I repeat it now.
I went on further and said that he did not have the Drury Bill before him although he said he was quoting from it.


Hugh Guthrie: You had it.
Mr. ROS'S:	Certainly I had it, and I
said there were sections in the Drury Bill -does my hon. friend deny it?


Mr. EDWARDS:: Will my hon. friend
allow me?


Duncan Campbell Ross: Just wait. My hon. friend
(Mr. Edwards) takes up more of the time of the House than I do.


William Cameron Edwards: And he takes it up to much better purpose than the hon. gentleman does.


Duncan Campbell Ross: 1 said that the clauses in the Drury Bill referred to former Acts under the Hearst Government, and I did not know-


Hugh Guthrie: Why did you not send it across?


Duncan Campbell Ross: You are awfully wise, but
you are not as wise in Tegard to this Bill as you thought you were.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I am.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must remind hon. gentlemen who desire to be heard that they should do the committee the honour of rising in their places and addressing the Chair. I must also remind the hon. member (Mr. Ross), who is addressing the committee, that his remarks should be addressed to the Chairman and not to hon. members on the other side of the Chamber.


Duncan Campbell Ross: I must apologize for referring to the hon. the Acting Solicitor General as I have done, and I shall, in deference to your ruling, Mi. Chairman, address the Chair. The hon. gentleman said that if I had sent the Bill across he would have told me what it meant. He introduced section 29 and he did not know what it meant. It was admitted by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) that it did not express the intention, and they had to ask for an amendment. I am not disputing what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) said in regard to the points he raised in reference to the two Bills, but if he will go back and refer to the Bills of 1918 and 1919 he may find that what he said is practically correct. In the draft Bill of the Drury Government it will be found that former sections have been enacted in an obscure way and you would have to refer to the laws of 1918 and 1919 to see what the effect of some of these sections was. I did not have those laws before me. What the bon. gentleman said was, that he was quoting from a definite Bill when in fact he was not quoting from it and that was what I rose to point out.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. member for
West Middlesex (Mr. D. C. Ross) has told us that he was discussing this matter frankly. The hon. member neglected to refer to the fact that he repeatedly said that he had the Drury Bill of 1920 before him and that he could not see the clause in question.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must ask hon. members to refrain from any further discussion of the Drury Bill. The amendment which was under discussion when this 'Subject was introduced has been adopted. WTe are now considering another amendment and I would request hon. members to bring their remarks to bear on the amendment before the committee.


William Cameron Edwards: Well, Mr. Chairman, I shall certainly bow to your ruling. A comparison was made between a bill introduced in the Ontario Legislature and a certain portion of the clause under discussion and
I presume that was why the reference to that Bill was regarded as pertinent. However, I shall bow to your ruling and not discuss that any further. I will merely say that I hope that the eyesight of my hon. friend from West Middlesex has improved in the last half or three-quarters of an hour and that he is now able to see what he was before unable to see.


Duncan Campbell Ross: I thank you.


James Arthurs: I have every sympathy with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) along certain lines. I have a great many German-born people in my riding who were misled by friends of the hon. member and who for many years, and perhaps up to the present time, or certainly until the beginning of the war, thought they were British subjects. In my riding these men were led as lambs to the slaughter, and were sworn by the ordinary oath of allegiance by magistrates appointed by the province of Ontario under the old regime. They were told they were British subjects and they in many cases 'believed it and continued to believe it up to the present time. But that does not make them British subjects in any sense of the word, and that is the only class of men to whom the hon. member's remarks would have any reference to at all. I have them in my riding as well as he has, and I have every sympathy with the men who were misled. The great majority of these people many years ago learned that this did not constitute the ordinary form of naturalization. They knew what the hon. member for North Waterloo knew, that every man who was naturalized under the Act before the beginning of the war could have obtained, as he can obtain to-day, a certificate that he was properly naturalized. My hon. friend can apply to the Secretary of State and obtain for the county of Waterloo the name of every German, Turk, or native of any country who has been naturalized within that county. He knows that as well as I do.


William Daum Euler: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Arthurs) trying to give the impression that I said anything to the contrary?


James Arthurs: Yes, the hon. gentleman did give me that impression. He said that many men could not find out whether or not they were naturalized.


William Daum Euler: I said they had no proof.


James Arthurs: The hon. gentleman said that many men in his county could not find out whether they were or were not

naturalized. Now he trikes the apposite side and says that he did not intend to give the impression to this House that they could not find out whether they were properly naturalized or not. I make the assertion now that any German or foreigner in Canada can very easily find out whether he has or has not been naturalized. It is open to any member of this House or to any person in Canada to find out whether he has been naturalized or not.


William Daum Euler: Will the hon. gentleman say that they could do that if they were naturalized before Confederation?


James Arthurs: There was no naturalization before Confederation.


William Daum Euler: Will tney be recognized as British subjects if they were here before Confederation, or will they have any difficulty in proving it in order that they may vote?


James Arthurs: My hon. friend was not referring to men .who are long since dead. He was referring to men who were in Canada and whose naturalization should or could have been conferred upon them since Confederation. The number of people who were here before Confederation would be so small as to be absolutely negligible in the argument. As I said before, as far as these men were concerned, I have a great deal of sympathy with them. Not long ago one of these men wrote to me saying that he had the naturalization papers issued by the province of Ontario and this man believed until the beginning of the war that he was a British citizen. But the amendment proposed by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee)-and hon. members on this side had no means of knowing what it was excepting by hearing it read by the hon. member-would have conferred upon the wives of all men who believe themselves to be citizens of Canada before or since the war the privilege of voting. It would not only have conferred that right upon the wives but would have conferred it upon the men themselves. In other words the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) if adopted would allow these men-who before the war made no serious attempt to become British subjects-to have the privilege of voting. I do not think that is my hon. friend's intention, but that is the practical effect of the amendment he has moved.


William Daum Euler: I would like to correct
what the hon. member for Parry Sound says by quoting from the Order in Council itself:

The minister observes further that many persons of alien enemy origin who came to Canada many years ago, during infancy, and have grown up believing themselves to be British subjects, now that questions of nationality are being carefully scrutinized, find it impossible to show that they have become British subjects, although they have voted and held municipal positions for many years. Many others believe that they became British subjects through the naturalization of their parents, but they are unable to prove it because the records are not available.
That is from the Order in Council itself.
i Mr. ARTHURS: In reply to that I would repeat what I said before, that the records are available to any member of this House.
i Mr. PARDEE: The Government do not know that.
1 Mr. ARTHURS: The Government does know it.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why did they make that *statement in the Order in Council, if such is the case??


James Arthurs: These records are available to members of Parliament. I know that in my riding I asked for the returns showing the number of alien persons who have been naturalized in the district of [DOT]Parry Sound, and the records as far back as the year 1867, which I believe to be complete, were produced. I believe that on any similar question any hon. gentleman could obtain exactly the same records. So faT as the children -are concerned, it is a very minor matter; the trouble is with these cases with which I sympathize myself. I have a great deal of sympathy with the class of men who have been unwittingly misled; ibut the adoption of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Lamb-ton will include a lot of men who' never had any deshe at all to become British citizens.


Lucien Cannon: To read clause 29 intelligently we must bear in mind that up to now the discussion has been carried on in connection with two different classes of electors. The first class are the women and children who have become naturalized British subjects by operation of law; and the second class are the men who have received the privileges of British subjects in Canada for a certain period of years, but who, owing to certain particular or special reasons, have not in hand to-day certificates of naturalization and therefore are not to be considered as British subjects. These men-according to the naturalization law as it stands and reads to-day-would not be in

a position to <be naturalized for a period of ten years to come. The first class of people -that is the women and children-were disposed of by the amendment proposed by the member for North Waterloo which was voted down by the committee.
We are now dealing with the second class of people. The member for West Lambton proposed an amendtnent whereby any citizen of this country who has been living in Canada for at least ten years, and would be entitled to naturalization, would have the power, when an election takes place, to go before a judge and secure from that judge a certificate and, having done so, be entitled to cast his ballot. The amendment is to cover the case of the men to whom I referred: at the beginning of my remarks. The Acting Solicitor General very briefly answered the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pardee) by saying that it was absolutely impossible for the Government to accept that amendment because it meant an amendment to the Naturalization Act itself. We have heard, since the discussion of clause 29 began in this House several ministers telling us that it was absolutely impossible to touch the Naturalization Act because that Act was a piece of legislation passed by the Imperial Parliament, and adopted by the various Dominions giving the right to every British subject within the Empire the privileges of British citizenship throughout that Empire. The Acting Solicitor General says that what the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) proposes is absolutely unacceptable because it means laying our hands on this Naturalization law, and when the Minister refers to the Naturalization law he has in mind, if I understand him correctly, the law of 1919. The argument of the minister is either good or bad. If that argument is good it ought to cover all cases; if it is bad it ought to be rejected by the committee. I claim, Mr. Chairman that that argument is unsound, because this committe, led by him as adopted the second paragraph of clause 29 and that is a direct amendment to, and an express alteration of, the Naturalization Law of our country. According do the Naturalization Act of 1919 the wives of British subjects in this country are British, subjects. Furthermore the minor children were naturalized by the fact that their father was naturalized, and when they become of age are British subjects possessing all the rights of British subjects. I say that if the naturalization law of our country remains as it reads to-day, and if no other law was introduced into this Parliament, these women and these children would be entitled to vote. This is not only my personnel interpretation but it is, I think, that
of the highest authority in this House as far as Parliamentary procedure and Parliamentary precedents are concerned, I mean the Minister of Justice. (Mr. Doherty). The Minister of Justice has discussed this question before the committee, and if you refer to unrevised Hansard, page 2136, you will find that, speaking on this subject, in answer to a question he spoke, he said:
Mr. Doherty: There are a class of people from whom the vote to which they would otherwise be entitled is taken by this Act.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.
Mr. Cannon: And from the wives and the children?
Mr. Doherty: If this Act had not stepped in, these women having become British subjects by marriage, or the children having become British subjects by the naturalization of their fathers would have had a vote.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: This is the declaration of the Minister of Justice who is the highest legal official in this House, a colleague .of the Minister of Militia, (Mr. Guthrie) and that declaration is a contradiction as flagrant as possible of the declaration just made by the Minister of. Militia. On the one side here is a minister who said: If there was no Franchise Act these women and these children would have a right to vote. On the other hand, when the hon. member for Lambton wishes to give at least some portion of justice to a class of our population the Minister of Militia replies: I refuse to accept that amendment, because by accepting it' I would alter the Naturalization Act. This House is entitled to better treatment from the Government. The Minister of Militia has no right to amend the Naturalization Act to suit his own purposes and the purposes of the Government on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to refuse the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lambton because it does not suit his or their purposes any further. We have already amended the Naturalization Act, and in saying that I base myself on the declaration made in this House by the Minister of Justice; and he cannot deny it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will my hon. friend
allow me? There is nothing in what he quoted as having been said by me which involves that there is any amendment to the Naturalization Act in the fact that these women and children were refused the vote. I did say that if that provision had not withdrawn their right to vote they would have had it. Why? Because if that right had not been withdrawn from them, this present Act would simply have said that

every British subject had such a right. But the class that he is now discussing is a class of people who are not British subjects. The distinction seems t-o me to be perfectly clear.


Lucien Cannon: The Minister of Justice
says that the distinction is perfectly clear. Well, he may be very grateful that his sight is as good as that; mine is not. I say that the Minister of Justice declared in this House that if paragraph 2 of clause 29 had not been introduced these women and children would have had the right to vote; and to take away that right to vote that they had as British subjects-and they were British subjects according to our Naturalization law as it existed-the. Government had to change the existing law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I never said that.


Lucien Cannon: Thait inference, I can logically draw from the remarks made by him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman can draw that inference, belt whether he can do so logically is another question.


Lucien Cannon: Therefore I say that the Minister of Militia has no right to bring before this committee as a sound argument the fact that if the amendment brought in by the hon. member for Lambton was adopted it would in a way alter the provisions of the Naturalization Act. That Act, when it did not suit their purpose has been put aside already by the Government. - I think this matter is very clear and there cannot be any discussion on it. The Minister of Justice gets up and says: I did not express any opinion that these opinion were given the vote by the Naturalization Act. I know they are not. The Naturalization Act does not give the vote; but it dbes give British citizenship. And the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) as a Minister oif the Crown gave his pledge before this House and before the country that the qualifications to be an elector under this new Franchise Act would be British citizenship within certain limitations as to residence and age.
Since last Thursday wheit we discussed this clause I have studied clause 29, I have read several books and I have tried1 to find parallel legislation-legislation which would mean that in this country side by side we will have British subjects entitled to vote, and also British subjects who will be denied the right to vote. Nowhere can I find such legislation. Although, Mr. 'Chaiirman, I am sure you have read a good deal of history I do not think that you have ever

encountered an instance of such legislation in any history of the world. The only instance which comes anywhere near this piece of legislation is the laws passed under the Roman Empire, when the people were distributed into three classes: The Roman citizens, the slaves, and the foreigners. The foreigners, if you refer to that legislation, you will find included not only people but also animals not indigenous to Italy. When, for instance, elephants were introduced during the first battles against Pyrrhus they were immediately designated by the legislature of Ithe Roman Empire as foreigners, when strange birds from Asia were introduced into Italy they were classed as foreigners; when wild beasts from Africa were brought back to Rome by pro-consuls they also were classified as foreigners. Is this Government going to carry ns back to the time of the Roman Empire? Are we in the country, which is supposed to have a progressive and democratic policy, going back to the policy which has been rejected by every other country in the world? I do not believe that onr people will endorse such a policy.
Now, one word and I will conclude. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) made a very strong appeal to this committee to-night, and he based it on legislation introduced by the Hearst Government. I have only this to say in reply. The Hearst Government after introducing that legislation went to the people-and the President of the Privy Council knows what happend to that government. If he takes his precedent from the Hearst Government, he may at the next election meet the same fate as the ministers of that government did when they appealed to the people of the province. Wc do not want as a precedent for legislation in this House legislation passed by defunct governments; we want live legislation; we want legislation that secures the rights of the people. And I think the amendment brought in by the [DOT]hon. member from Lambton is an amendment that ought to be adopted by the majority of this committee.


Mr. FIELDING:: Subject to the insertion of a few words, to which I shall refer in a moment, I desire to endorse the amendment of the hon, member for West Lambton, and I think that strong reasons can be given in support of it. The Minister of Militia in opposing the amendment based his case upon, shall I say the sacred character of the Naturalization Act? He said that this amendment was an attempt virtually to amend the Naturaliza-

tion Act; thereupon he proceeded in the very warmest manner to defend the ten-year clause in that Act. He said that ten years was not too long; it was a perfectly good clause; it was all right-. But he forgot something. He forgot that his two colleagues, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) said that it was all wrong. The other evening these hon. gentlemen told us that they were instituting negotiations with the British Government with a view to trying to get that provision Changed. I put the question directly to the Minister of Justice when he was speaking .of the negotiations in general terms. I said: tell us what was the object of these negotiations; what was it you wanted? Well, he said, the ten-year clause is capable of alteration. I said: then you want to reduce that period? Yes, that was it. So they are negotiating- and the Minister of Militia is a party to it- to get a change in the Naturalization Act as respects the ten-year clause. Yet the Minister of Militia bases his whole objection to the amendment on the ground that the ten-year clause is absolutely correct and proper. Now, that clause has caused a grievance. The Minister of Justice admitted that it was a grievance; the President of the Council admitted that it was a grievance. If it was not a grievance, why were these hon. gentlemen trying to get the clause changed? There is, then, according to their statement, not mine, a grievance existing under that ten-year clause. The Minister of Militia does not see it. He says it is a splendid clause; ten years is not too long; he almost talked as if he would like to make it twenty. But while he says-ten years is not too long, the Minister of Justice and the President of the Council say that it is too long, and that they are doing their best to have it changed. Well now, the Minister of Justice,, the President of the Council and myself had a little friendly conversation as to the possibilities of getting that provision changed by negotiation. The Minister of Justice and the President of the Council, admitting the grievance, thought we should endeavour by negotiation with the British Government to obtain a reduction of the ten-year term which my hon. friend, the Minister of Militia -says is admirable. Well, I did not think that the prospect of getting it changed was a bright one. It ie important to bear in mind Chat both the Minister of Justice and the President of the Council considered that there was -a grievance in
the present condition of affairs; the Minister of Militia took the opposite view; and I have to make up my mind as to which of these views is correct. If they are entering upon negotiation with the British Government in order to remove this grievance, I am bound to believe that the Minister of Militia has been away for a while and is not informed of what is going on in the Government of which he is a member.
I do not see any prospect of remedying this grievance in the way that the Minister of Justice and the President of the Council have suggested. I know the delay that takes place in connection with such negotiations. It is hard to get decisions from a Government; then after you get your decision you have to introduce an Act of Parliament. As I said in the previous discussion, the Naturalization Act is virtually a treaty between the Imperial Government and the Governments of the overseas dominions, and it is not likely that you can bring about any change until negotiations have been had between the parties. We all know how slow things of that kind are in coming to a finality; months, probably years, will pass before you can get a remedy for the grievance which the Minister of Justice and the President of the Council say exists. Then my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) comes in and says:	since we
are not likely to get the remedy for that grievance in the way these Ministers suggest, why can we not remedy it ourselves? We do not need to amend the Naturalization Act. We cannot by any Act of our own create an Imperial citizenship, but we can create a Canadian citizenship for the purposes of this Act. If there are honest people in this country who ought to have a vote but who are disqualified from voting by reason of that ten-year provision, tihent I say that while we cannot alter the Act as respects Imperial citizenship we can by our own Act declare the terms and conditions upon which we will apply a remedy of our own. And the remedy is this; that for the purposes of this Act, that is, for the purpose of voting and for no other purpose, these persons shall be qualified to be naturalized upon, the terms and conditions which existed in Canada before the passing of this Imperial Naturalization Act. What is wrong about that? That is not an amendment to the Naturalization Act. An amendment to the Naturalization Act would affect the question of Imperial citizenship.


James Arthurs: Will the hon. member
say that a man who was in Canada for

twenty or thirty years prior to 1914 but *made no attempt to become a British citizen should be placed on the same footing with regard to the franchise as the man who became a British citizen during that period?


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I am afraid that my hon. friend is luring me into a broader discussion than I desire to undertake.


James Arthurs: The amendment proposed by the member for West Lambton is that any man who has been in Canada and who has the qualifications, whether or not [DOT]he ever applied for British citizenship, should be a voter under this Act.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I do not think
that the question whether one has applied or not makes very much difference. If my hon. friend wants a general declaration of my views on the franchise, while I do not want to go into such a br*ad question, let me say this: there is a troublesome and embarrassing question out in British Columbia regarding Asiatics. I confess that it is an embarrassing situation, and I do not wish at the moment, to express any opinion about it. But subject to that, and expressing no opinion about that, I say I believe that every person who is prepared to take the oath of allegiance, who has lived in Canada the necessary time, who has acted the part of a good citizen, and who wants to become naturalized, to become a citizen of Canada, by all means should be allowed to do so. As for disfranchising those who have been British subjects, that- is another feature of the Act; the terms that have been used by various speakers in condemnation of it are not too strong. But that is getting away from the amedment, to which I wish to confine myself.
First, I say, there is a grievance. We will put aside what the Minister of Militia said. He was away; he did not know what was going on; he did not know these negotiation about which the Minister of Justice ad the President of the Privy Council have told us. These hon. gentleme say that there is undoubtedly a grievance; that many worthy people in this country are going to be deprived of the opportunity to vote because of the misfortune of the Naturalization Act, and they propose to take up negotiations which may occupy some considerable time. Now, my proposal is, not that we shall attempt by any Act of our own to give to these people an Imperial naturalization; that we cannot do. But what I propose and what the member for West Lambton proposes is that for all the purposes of this Act, that is for the purpose of voting, those persons who have a grie-

vance shall, upon going to a judge and taking the oath of allegiance-that is not in the amendment, but these are the words I would like to see inserted; I take it that the member for West Lambton means that -these people, I say, who are disqualified by the operation of the Naturalization Act, shall have the right, upon proving that they are qualified by residence and otherwise to vote as citizens of Canada. That is what the amendment means and that is what I support.
Mr. TWEED IE': The argument which has been advanced tiy my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) involves the question of our enalbling all people oif alien enemy origin who resided in Canada the necessary length of time prior to 1914 to be enfranchised under the present law.
It seems to me that the gist of the whole argument was suggested Iby the hon. gentleman who asked the question in regard to those people who had resided in this country thirty and forty years. I know of many instances of that throughout Western Canada. The period may not be so long, but there are men there who have lived in the Dominion ten, twelve, twenty-five years, who have never become naturalized. British citizenship, I think, is. one of the greatest blessings which any person can enjoy, and if there has been any fault in our country ini the past, it has (been the fault that all Governments in this country have held the queistion of citizenship at too slight a value. If those people who have lived in this country refused to make application for their naturalization papers when the required time had elapsed, are we going to set aside the principle of our citizenship simply in order to place those people on the voters' list? If they did not in that period appreciate their citizenship, there is no just ground upon which they can complain of the attitude of the Government if we do not pass sbme speedy, hasty legislation in order that they may enjoy the franchise at the next election. If they themselves were so inconsiderate of their rights during that long period, why should we now worry over the rights >and privileges which they seek to enjoy? -
Various matters in connection with the right to exercise the franchise in this country have been discussed, and as was pointed out by the hon. member for Gape Breton South (Mr. Butts) in connection with the administration of the affairs of the province of Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen'si (Mr. Fielding) who stands here to-night and asks us to extend

the franchise to the Germans, Austrians1, Bulgarians and Turks* who have resided in this country three years or more, is the very same hon. gentleman who deprived some twenty-five or thirty or iforty thousand good British subjects of the franchise in 'Nova Scotia while he was premier of that province. Did he manifest any interest in those who were good, true British subjects? I cannot for my part understand the change of heart to which he gives expressions tonight when he deliberately took the franchise from British subjects' when they were enjoying it, because they were working for a Government which was of a different political faith from.his own.
As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Lambton West ('Mr. Pardee), any man who has any pride in British citizenship and in his country should vote down that amendment, and let those people abide their time subject to the laws of this country.


William Stevens Fielding: 'I am going to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie) a question. 'Supposing that all he has said regarding my action in the matter of a franchise in Nova Scotia were as true as it is untrue, what bearing would it have on the discussion? What reason does it give for anything that is said here to-night?


Mr. TWEEDIE:: The bearing which it
has is what 3 pointed out, namely, that I cannot understand the attitude of any hon. gentleman who will deprive any British subject of the franchise, and who will at this time manifest such great distress on account o,f Germans, Austrians, Bulgarians, Turks or any other alien enemy who resides in this country. The point which II wish to make is, that he wishes to set at naught or treat lightly the great benefits of British citizenship in this country, and on that point I take issue with the hon. gentleman. I have no doubt that he is sincere in the views which he sets forth. I am equally sincere in the views I set forth; and I believe the great mass of the people of this country who enjoy the- franchise do not want alien enemies rushed in so that they may enjoy those privileges simply because they have resided in this country for a period of three years.


William Stevens Fielding: Much of the discussion to-night has not been about alien enemies; it has been about the disfranchisement .by this legislation of British subjects, persons declared by the law of the Empire, by the law of Canada, to be British subjects.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: The hon. member (Mr. Fielding) knows perfectly well that the Minister of Militia, who is in charge of this Bill, pointed out, clearly and in a manner which is beyond contradiction, that this is not a Bill for the disfranchisement of any person who enjoys the franchise of this country; it simply does not include a certain class of people to whom he referred. But the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) now endeavours to divert the issue from this amendment, and the point- of this amendment is that it intends to naturalize Austrians and Germans and others, who have lived in this country for a period of three years before the year 1914, some of whom perhaps have lived in this country for thirty or forty years. I am not entering into the general discussion as regards the clause, but I say that I am absolutely opposed to giving those people the right to exercise the franchise at the next election in this country simply because they lived in this country three years.
Mr. FIELDING; I_ have only one other question. I am assuming now that my hon. friend is a rational being.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I am.


William Stevens Fielding: I aim speaking courteously. Will he tell me why he supposes that these people who for forty years have been in Canada with no desire to have the vote, are suddenly going to be seized with a desire to vote?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I do not know. It was the hon. gentleman who was asked before distinctly if he divided them into two classes, those who had resided here for a period of three years and those who had resided here for ten, twelve, twenty-five or forty years. As to the first, if they came to this country from Germany, or Austria, or Bulgaria, or Turkey, or any other alien enemy country, he must know just as well as I do that after such a short period of separation from their mother country, when the war broke out, they must have had an attachment for their mother country, and that during the period of the war, if they ever had any slight attachment for Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada, that must have been wiped out- by the stand of Germany or their native country in the war. As regards the other class, if they did not respect and value their citizenship in this country enough to apply for and secure naturalization and enjoy the franchise, they are not worthy of consideration at the pre-

sent time under the circumstances, and in view of the struggle through which this country has passed.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Tweedie) has become very vehement over this matter. Perhaps he might say what his Government did not very many years ago. May I refer to Orders in Council which have been passed regarding the very subject upon which this amendment is founded? If the hon. member will take the trouble to look up Orders in Council Nos. 2552 and 2948, a portion of which have been quoted here tonight, he will find that the Government, when they passed one of those Orders in Council, had exactly this class of citizens in mind, and they said to themselves:	It
is not a fair proposition to disfranchise these men who have been many years in this country and believe themselves to be British subjects, but who cannot prove that they have their full naturalization, and we will give them the vote. There is no doubt about that. The letter was quoted here to-night; it has been sent for now, and if I get it will read it. Surely the hon. gentleman cannot deny that if they have resided in Canada for three years prior to 1914 and from 1914 to 1920, they have been here for ten years, which is as much as the Naturalization Act itself calls for. Surely that is sufficient to entitle them to vote under the Act. Order in Council No. 2552 reads in part as follows:
The minister observes further that many persons of alien enemy origin who came to Canada many years ago, during infancy, and have grown up believing themselves to be British slbjects, now that questions of nationality are being carefully scrutinized, find it impossible to show that they have become British subjects, although they have voted and held municipal positions for many years.
That is, they are merely naturalized by reason of the great number of years that they have resided in this country.
Many others believe that they became British subjects through the naturalization of their parents, but they are unable to prove it because the records are not available.


Arthur Meighen: [DOT] What does the Order in Council do?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It simply gives them the right to vote.


Arthur Meighen: No, it gives them naturalization.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It gives them naturalization, and therefore, they have the right to vote.


Arthur Meighen: That is very different.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Now you take it away
from them. It is given with one hand and

pulled back with the other. It is given by the hand that wants to be fair; it is taken back by the hand that wants to
12	m. act unfairly politically. It is all very well for people to discant on these people in this House. The people who are condemned are some of the best citizens in this Dominion, although I do not say that that is true of all of thelm. This is being done for a political purpose, and it will have one effect and one only, and that is to keep open a wound that should be healed and that will not make the country united.


Arthur Meighen: If this amendment has done nothing else, it has exposed the pretensions of hon. gentlemen opposite as regards the principle that governs them in matters of the franchise. 1 have sat_ in this House for many years and, particularly in recent years, I have heard it urged times without number from across the floor that naturalization and the franchise go hand in hand, and that it is a crime to take away the franchise from any person who enjoys naturalization. They have argued that the franchise is founded upon naturalization, rests there, is part and parcel of naturalization, and cannot be divorced therefrom. It is true they carried it too far. There was no truth in the doctrine at all. It is true that while they argued in favour of that doctrine they themselves were parties to the disfranchisement of half the citizens of this country and resisted the enfranchisement of that half. It is true they had no sincerity when they so argued, but at least that was the rock they believed they stood on; and on that they made their fight. Where do they stand now? They look over this country and find a class of our population whom they would like to see given the vote. Why they would like to have those people vote it is for them to say and for us only to conjecture; and I would conjecture that they believe they would get the support of those people. Do they say it is because they are naturalized citizens? Is it because the franchise is necessary, appurtenant to, and cannot be separated from, naturalization? Oh no ! They are on other ground altogether. They have forgotten all of their preachings of the last four or five years and now tell us that even though these people are not naturalized it is the duty of the Government to give them the vote. And the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Pardee) reads an Order in Council which he says is being repealed by this Bill and which had the effect of enabling the naturalization of certain people in this country who had

lived for many years and who possibly through a technicality were not in a position to comply with the requirements. Any person who came in under that Order in Council had to assume all the obligations of citizenship in this country before he could be naturalized or enjoy any of the benefits of naturalization. Is that the case with this amendment?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It is? Would any man or woman who came and sought the vote under that amendment be bound by any of the obligations of citizenship?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I admit that I should have added, "on their taking the oath of allegiance." With the consent of the committee I now desire to do so.


Arthur Meighen: What obligations of
citizenship would that bind them to?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Do you not believe in it?


Arthur Meighen: No man but a naturalized citizen of Canada is bound by any of the obligations of citizenship. Would the hon. member support the compulsory military service of a man who was not naturalized? If so, would he give him the vote?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It is a different thing.


Arthur Meighen: I know it is a different thing. 'Now let me ask the hon. member again. Would he support a Military Service Act which compelled a non-naturalized citizen to fight in the armies of Canada?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is a different proposition.


Arthur Meighen: I know it is, but I am asking you the question.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: :	Draw your own conclusions.


Arthur Meighen: Why does not the hon. member answer?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Never mind, the two things
are different.	I
1	i


Arthur Meighen: I know why the hon. member will not answer; he is perfectly aware that his answer Would convict him. Would he answer, Yes? If he did, he knows he would put himself in a position that would make him ridiculous before the world.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: In your opinion.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the hon.
member not answer?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Go on.
Mr. MEIGBEiN: He is like the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross).


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, he is not.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I commend the hon. member's discretion in repudiating the comparison.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Not in the way you imply.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly no country in the world ever called upon any but its own citizens to defend it, and no country in the world ever gave the franchise to any one who was not a citizen; and in no Parliament that I ever heard of, was it ever suggested that the franchise should he given to any but citizens.


Mr. POWER:: Does my hon. friend not know that we allowed American citizens in the Canadian army to vote in the last election?


Arthur Meighen: Not a man.


Joseph Archambault: Do you remember the election at St. Johns, Quebec?


Arthur Meighen: I do, and I remember the investigation which the hon. member called for and which completely exploded the charges made.


Joseph Archambault: Does the hon.
gentleman believe in the decisions of Judge Maclennan?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly I believe in Judge Maclennan?	.


Joseph Archambault: I knew the answer I would get.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I trust that hon. members will not enter into a discussion of the election at St. Johns, Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly not, Mr. Chairman. You know as well as I do, Sir, that as soon as hon. gentlemen call for an investigation and it turns out against them they at once malign the judge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: However, what I am discussing is the Act itself. I say that under the War-time Elections Act no citizen of any country hut Canada had the right to vote.	,


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But they did vote.


William Duff: They voted in Amherst.


Arthur Meighen: I am not discussing
whether they did vote or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Back water.


William Duff: American citizens voted in Amherst.


Arthur Meighen: If hon. members desire to raise any question regarding the way in' which the Act was carried out they may do so, as they did before, and again they will he beaten. But if they are capable of turning their minds to the point at issue I shall address them. The War-time Elections Act gave the franchise to British subjects and to no man or woman who was not a British subject. Citizens of the United States came to Canada and enlisted here; the War-time Elections Act was passed, and not one of these .pen was given the vote.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did vote.


Arthur Meighen: Not an hon. member on . the other side-and they are sitting in this House tonight-rose in his place and suggested that any American' citizen or the citizen of any other country should have the vote by that Act, even though they were at the time fighting in the defence of this country. Now, Sir, let me ask you: Does it not occur to you as rather curious than hon. gentlemen opposite should see an Act passed, at a time when the citizens of another country had enlisted to serve this country in its defence in Europe, and never suggest that those men should have the vote? They never suggested that those men should be enfranchised, because they were not our citizens; but now they lopk abroad and see Germans Austrians, Bulgars and others who are not our citizens, and they are most solicitous in their behalf, being exceedingly anxious that they should be given the vote. Surely, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Cannon: That is Toryism.


Arthur Meighen: I put my Toryism
against the Liberalism of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Ernest Lapointe: You will have to come to it.


Arthur Meighen: I address this particularly to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), because none needs it more. Surely if there ever was a time *when the doors of the franchise could be opened to the citizens of a country otheT than our own it was the time when this country in its peril was being defended by citizens of other countries who had sworn allegiance for that purpose. Surely they might have been admitted to the franchise.

That was never asked for, that was never included in our law. But now hon. gentlemen rise in the House and ask that men who have never sought citizenship in Canada, who, for all we know do not want citizenship in the British Empire and who have not been burdened with a single obligation of citizenship, be granted the rights of citizenship-that the doors be thrown wide open and that these people may be given the ballot the same as citizens of this country. In what position are hon. gentlemen placed? For years they have sought to malign the election laws of Canada on the ground that you never could divorce citizenship from the ballot; If this amendment has done nothing more it has shown that there has been no principle inspiring the Opposition in their antagonism to former election laws any more than there has been in their antagonism to this ; and if this discussion has done nothing more it at least has served a purpose in one respect: it has shown that the only rule which governs hon. gentlemen opposite in matters of franchise is a pretty shrewd conjecture as to what class of people in this country is likely to support themselves.	.


William Daum Euler: If the Government is
really sincere in desiring to implement the promise made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) it wmulh be quite possible for them to ensure that the [DOT]people under discussion to-night should be given the vote and proper naturalization. I am one of those who argued, and argued very sincerely, that the vote ought to go with citizenship. I believe that yet. I am going to support the amendment of my hon. friend from West Lambton, and I shall do it for this reason: If it is logical for this Government to take the vote away from British subjects in one ease, it is just as logical to give it to people who are not technically British subjects. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) states that there is a grievance. That there is a grievance is, I think, admitted by responsible members of the Government. That is amply proven. The Prime Minister himself has said that he considers these people have a grievance. That is proven in different ways. It was proven by making provision in 1917 by means of Orders iri Council which were designed to provide for the naturalization of these people in a proper way. It was proven by the Prime Minister's speeches at the Peace Conference and it was proven by the attitude of the President of the

Privy Council when he backed up the Prime Minister in that matter. It was proven the other night by the Minister of Justice when he admitted there was a grievance. It was even proven by the Acting Solicitor General although he takes a different attitude to-night. To-night he is willing to withdraw what he said in the debate in 1919. To-night he thinks that these people who have been here longer than ten years should not be giv-en the vote; and yet in the debate of 1919 after I had made an argument to the effect that we should have made it possible for these people to become technically Canadians by giving them naturalization the Acting Solicitor General made some observations. I should add that I had moved an amendment to the effect that the clause should be amended as follows:
That such person is the subject of a country which at the passing- of this Act was at war with His Majesty, provided that such subject was permanently resident in Canada on the 4th day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and nine.
The effect of that was that a person who had lived in Canada for ten years should be given the right of securing naturalization. I thought that amendment was reasonable and it was reasonable at that time to the Acting Solicitor General, because he said:
I confess that the amendment does1 not appear to be unreasonable but I would like to have an opportunity of considering whether or not it would be deemed a radical change from the provisions of the Imperial Act, and as there are several other elements in the proposal which I shall have to consider, I would ask that the matter stand over until some future occasion in order that I might look into it.
He based his objection not upon the same ground as he has to-night but merely upon the fact that the amendment might conflict with the Imperial Naturalization Act. We have this expression of opinion from the Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Justice, that there is a grievance here to be remedied. If this amendment cannot be accepted, and if the Government is sincere in all it has said, I would like to make the suggestion that I made the other night and that is that this House re-enact the old Canadian Naturalization law and that it have force until such time as the Imperial Naturalization law may be altered. That is surely a fair suggestion. It conforms entirely to the views of the Government if they desire to give these people the franchise and naturalization. The answer made to that the other night was that they did not wish to have a
dual naturalization law. But you have that in effect now. You had it for some time in the past and you actually have it to-day. As a matter of fact, while you speak of giving these people of enemy alien origin the Imperial naturalization, after you have successfully completed- your negotiations with the British Government, they will not get Imperial naturalization any way. Take men who came from Germany, Bulgaria, Austria or Turkey; if they have Canadian naturalization to-day that is all they can get. The members of the Government know that to be the fact because we know that some of these men have made application for an Imperial naturalization certificate and they have been refused. If they are refused that now, what chance have others of getting the Imperial Naturalization certificate?
I say, none at all. Then, under the circumstances, if it is conceded that these men are worthy of naturalization-and I am not asking on behalf of anybody else-they still have to come before the judge. If you enact the old Canadian naturalization law it is not a matter of throwing the doors wide open to everybody in the country; it means that they still have to go before the judge *and prove that they are worthy of naturalization;. If they prove that they should be given Canadian naturalization-and as I said the other night that would serve the purpose in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand-give them Canadian naturalization. That is what they want; they are Canadians first, last, and ail the time; and it is no reflection upon their patriotism to say that Canadian citizenship probably appeals much more to them than Imperial citizenship-I should think it would to everybody in this country. As far as I am concerned I would like' to make that suggestion in all sincerity and good faith to the Government. Why could it not be possible, at this very session of the House-because it need not be debated at length to re-enact that Ganad' an naturalization law. Under that Act these men can become naturalized and the vote will necessarily flow from such naturalization. I should like to know from the Government what possible objection there can be to that? I think that would be the preferable and the better way, because then they would be British subjects and the franchise will flow out of that fact. I ask again what objection can there be to it? That is the best way, but if that way cannot be followed I assuredly will vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Lambton in order to do justice to these people.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the committee
ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question, question.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment
(Mr. Pardee) carry?


William Daum Euler: I would like to get a reply if possible from the Government or from the minister. That is only fair.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The rule is
that when the committee has declared itself ready to vote upon a question, no hon. member has a right to speak. The hon. member can, however, speak again, after the amendment has been disposed of, and before the clause is adopted.


William Daum Euler: I was merely desirous of
obtaining an answer to my question from the Government.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon member is certainly out of order in repeating his question. The question is now on the amendment. All those in favour piease say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Georges Henri Boivin: - All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Georges Henri Boivin: I declare the amendment lost.


Jacques Bureau: Yeas and nays.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to
hon. gentlemen on both sides that the time for members to rise in order to exercise their right to demand a vote is when the Speaker, or the Chairman, states that in his opinion the ayes or the nays have it. After the presiding officer has declared the amendment carried or lost it is too late to rise for the purpose of demanding a vote. Owing to the fact that this rule has heretofore been misunderstood I would suggest that by unanimous consent a vote be taken.
Amendment negatived: Yeas 44, nays 76.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that the amendment submitted by the hon. Acting Solicitor General has been carried?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Now the clause stands as amended?


Georges Henri Boivin: As amended by the
Acting Solicitor General. The following words have been added to the clause:
fMr. Euler.]	3	.
Provided that no disability provided by paragraph B of subsection 4 of section S of the Naturalization Act, chapter 38 of the statutes of 1919 (second session), shall disentitle a person on that ground alone to the s-aid certificate.
Shall the clause as amended carry?


Frank S. Cahill: I want to enter my protest against the clause passing as it stands at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: No doubt that will help the clause.


Frank S. Cahill: Has some hon. gentleman anything he wishes to draw my attention to? If so, I will take my seat and listen to him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Ernest Lapointe: That is all they can say.


Jacques Bureau: Those who cannot speak cannot hear. That is why they are shouting "louder."


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the clause carry?


Frank S. Cahill: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to the hon. member (Mr. Cahill) that it is not sufficient for him to rise and remain standing. If he desires to prevent or delay the putting of the question, he must continue the debate.


Frank S. Cahill: I thought it was customary for the chair to ask for order, and I was waiting for order to be restored. It may be the rule that you must do more than stand on your feet and wait for order to be restored.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Frank S. Cahill: I doubt very much, Mr. Chairman, if there is any rule defining how fast a man shall speak or how much time he shall occupy in debate. If hon. members opposite are not anxious to get away from here in a great hurry, they can very well continue as they are doing now and they will get all the entertainment they are looking for.
Before the clause carries I want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that this country at the present time is in worse need of people than of anything else. I think the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) will agree with me on that. And yet this clause wall work directly against immigration. When people come to a country they come to make new homes, to better their condition, and to be-

come citizens. But after men and women have been in this contry for forty, fifty and in some cases sixty years enjoying the rights of citizenship, and find that by an Act of this Government they are precluded from exercising the franchise, I submit that the *Government of the day could do nothing better calculated to work a great hardship on our taxpayers than by passing this Act, which will exclude for the future not only Germans, Bulgarians, and Turks, but American and British subjects-the very people that we want; because if the Government juggle with them as they did last year by passing legislation under Which they can send British subjects out of the country-a piece of legislation that was rushed through this House without any consideration-	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank S. Cahill: There seem to be several *chairmen calling for order, Mr. Chairman.
I do not know whether they are assuming to undertake the duties of the Chair or not. This very measure juggling with the franchise will be the means of keeping good prospective citizens out of this country. *There is no question about that. When my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) says that a man who has been in this country for twentydive or thirty years without asking for naturalization should not have it, the reflection is not on the alien, it is on the Canadian people. There must be something radically wrong with Cana-dianism when men and women will live in this country for thirty years and fail to ask for citizenship. When my hon. friends the other day introduced the question of education and urged that we do. something for our foreign immigrants, I thought they were taking the Tight course, and I think so still. But it is the business of the Government and of every citizen not to attempt to juggle with the votes of these immigrants as has been done in the past.
When it is said that this Act cannot be changed, I would ask my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) what course are the Ontario Government adopting in this matter? Are they being guided by the Naturalization Act? Not at all. Every province makes its own franchise; and surely the Dominion Government, has no less power than the governments of the provinces. We have a much greater responsibility than the provinces- a responsibility to every immigrant, and it is a responsibility that we should not treat as lightly as it is being treated here tonight by hon. Ministers of the Crown in
trying to pass this legislation. One minister stated that the franchise had been passed last year without opposition. In 1918. my first session, the first measure I spoke on was the Franchise Bill. I was in favour of woman suffrage, but I was opposed to having it tied up to the War Time Elect'ons Act. It was explained that it could not be done in any other way, and I accepted it for that reason because I wanted women to have the vote. Hon. members get up and say that everyone on this side of the House was opposed to woman suffrage. One minister says there was no opposition. Well, he has apologized for telling an untruth. Another minister says he was reading from an Act submitted to the legislature of Ontario; and he must admit that- he is stating an untruth. They treat this matter in that way, they pay no attention to it any further than to get this Act in such shape that they can carry off another election. They have no more regard for the country, they have no more regard for citizenship, they have no more regard for what is decent and honest than to simply say:	Give us this
Franchise Act, we will force it through anyway, so that we may have a chance to get back again to the Treasury benches. The attention seems to be so good that I think I will desist; otherwise if my hon. friends want to prolong the discussion I am quite willing that they ishould do so. However, I just rose to go on record as protesting against this Act going through in this manner. So perhaps in future my hon. friends will have a little more patience.


Joseph Archambault: Before the clause carries I wish to emphasize again the situation created by the answer given to me tonight by the Acting solicitor General regarding the case I brought before the House. It was the case of a gentleman who came to this country from France thirty years ago, with his wife and his son who was seven years old. After a while he got his naturalization papers, and, of course, by the operation of the law his wife and son became British subjects. When the war broke out in August, 1914, the son took the first boat for France, he fought for five years, and he was decorated with the Military Medal and the Legion of Honour. His mother, who resided in Montreal, took part in all the war charities; that is she was practically the head of the charity organizations in that city, and she did such good work that she also was decorated by the Government of France. The mother and the son had both voted in the election of



1917; they had the right to vote. Now, according to the interpretation given by the Acting Solicitor General, this woman, who during five years cared for the relatives of those who went to the front, and her son who during five years risked his life and was wounded for the cause of civilization, will be deprived of their votes unless they will submit to the humiliation-I insist on this word-the humiliation of going before a judge and submitting to an inquiry regarding their loyalty and probably being cross<-examined by one of the government officials; and yet if the husband of this woman and the father of this boy had come from the slums of Chicago or had been a Mexican desperado they would not be obliged to submit to this humiliation. I appeal to the fairness of members of the committee. Is it fair that this woman and this boy who did more than their duty during the war should not be entitled to vote without going through this procedure, while the eon of a man from Mexico or of a man from the slums of Chicago, who probably did nothing during the war, is entitled to vote without going through it. I submit that any member who does not realize the unfairness of this situation is either blinded by political eagerness, or, non compos mentis.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I wish to protest against this clause being carried in its present form. On Thursday last I put the following question to the minister in charge of the Bill:
Will the minister be kind enough to tell me what good reason there is and what good purpose will be served by compelling these British subjects to travel miles from their homes to obtain certificates?
The minister answered, if answer it can be termed:
Under this Bill as drawn it is provided that a person who has become a British subject by operation of law, in order to vote, shall obtain a certificate from a judge. That certificate is not for the purpose of identity, as my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier suggested a few moments ago; it is for the purpose of satisfying the judge that the woman has such qualifications that in any event, though she may be a British subject by operation of law, she would be entitled to naturalization.
He admits that these people who are compelled to make applications are British subjects. Clause 29 says, in respect of the qualification of a voter:
A voter is one who
(a)	is a British subject by birth or naturalization ; and,
(b)	is of the full age of twenty-one years; and,

(c)	has ordinarily resided in Canada for at least twelve months and in the electoral district wherein such person seeks to vote for at least two months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
Under this clause it is noit claimed That these people who are compelled to travel many miles at inconvenience to themselves and their families to appear before a judge and obtain this certificate are not British subjects. The law says that ito have a vote you must he a British subject. Why, then, are these people compelled to go to this unnecessary trouble to obtain a certificate? If the reason is good, why did the minister noit tell the committee what that reason was? Later, the minister said:
The amendment I have submitted meets with the approval of the Government and it is the desire that it be passed.
It seems to me that the Government should be in a position to tell the committee and the country what reason they have for insisting that these people who are British subjects should be compelled to obtain these certificates. It has been suggested that the reason is political; that the motive is not what it should be. If that is the case, I will make my remarks very brief. I am sorry that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) is not in his seat, because he knows the conditions in Saskatchewan even better than I do. He must know that if this provision is carried into the law thousands of people in the western provinces will, in effect, at any rate, be disfranchised. If that is the intention of the Government, then this proposed legislation is worse than the War-time Elections Act. Under the Wartime Elections Act the Government went out and disfranchised people by what I would term front-door methods, but in this case, they give the franchise with one hand and take it away with the other; instead of using front door methods they are going in the back door and depriving these people of the right to the franchise.
I have nothing to say on behalf of the newcomers to this country or against the ten-year residence clause as contained in the Naturalization Act. Taking into consideration the promise made by the Prime Minister, I have, however, something to say on behalf of the people who are already in this country, who came here at our invitation. We went so far as to send our immigration officers into their country to invite them to come here and it seems to me that if we want to build up in this country a united citizenship, that is a mighty poor way to go about it. I think that gvery hon. member looked upon the resolution intro-

duced a few days ago by the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in respect to the education of the foreign-born in this country as a good resolution. You can say all you like along the lines suggested in that resolution, but if you treat newcomers to this country as we propose to treat them under the terms of this Bill, you will undo everything you do in every other way. I dissociate myself from anything that may have been said on behalf of foreigners in this country. No one from this group has been making a plea for foreigners. These people are Canadian citizens, British subjects in this country, but for some reason this Government has seen fit to bring down a Bill that will in effect disfranchise subjects who are entitled to the vote.


William Cameron Edwards: 
Joseph Archambault: It had to come out.


William Cameron Edwards: Well, I hope it does not make my hon. friend siok; it has not had that effect on me. When the question of

extending the franchise to women iwas before the House, my friend will admit, certain hon. gentlemen opposite from Quebec objected to the extension of the franchise to women, and that, I believe is the attitude generally of that province. I am not going to quarrel with the people of Quebec for taking that attitude if they choose to take it. A great deal can be said both for and against the extension of the franchise to women, but I think I am stating what is correct when I say that a strong feeling was manifested in this House by certain members from Quebec against extending the franchise to women, which feeling Was not manifested, at least to the same extent, by members from any other province. It was their privilege to express that disapproval if they wished to do so, but it seems slightly inconsistent on the part of those hon. gentlemen who objected generally to the extension of the franchise to women to show now such solicitude on behalf of women of alien enemy origin who happen to reside in this country. Those who give this bill careful study and consideration will see in this clause certain safeguards which we should have in this legislation in order to protect those people who are entitled to the franchise. We have been entirely too slack in that regard in times past; we have held our franchise entirely too cheaply, and the safeguards which are inserted are no more than are right under existing circumstances. True, the war is over, but the people of this country have not yet forgotten and will not forget for many years to come that there was a war. They are still suffering from the losses which many of them have sustained in that war, and it is in the interest of all concerned that there should be a period of probation, so to speak, before certain people are taken into full citizenship.	*i
Section 29, as amended, agreed to on division.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Eight Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 1.05 a.m. (Tuesday.)
Tuesday, May 11, 1920.